Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
COMSOL MCP Server

COMSOL MCP Server

by Zhangyoupeng1996
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

geometry_boolean_union

Combine multiple geometry objects into a single unified shape using boolean union operation in COMSOL simulations.

Instructions

Create a boolean union of geometry objects.

Args: input_objects: Names of objects to unite geometry_name: Geometry sequence name model_name: Model name (default: current model)

Returns: Created union operation info

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "input_objects": "<input_objects>"
    },
    "name": "geometry_boolean_union"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
input_objectsYes
geometry_nameNo
model_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 'Creates' and 'Returns info', but does not disclose if it modifies existing geometry, how overlaps are handled, or any side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and includes Args/Returns in a structured format. No wasted words, but could be more informative without extra length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a boolean union tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on required state, error conditions, and behavior of the union operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It adds brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Names of objects to unite'), which is helpful but still vague for geometry_name and model_name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Create a boolean union of geometry objects' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling geometry_boolean_difference by name and description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use union versus alternatives like difference or add operations. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools