COMSOL MCP Server

by Zhangyoupeng1996

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

param_sweep_setup

Configure a parametric sweep for a COMSOL model parameter by providing parameter name and value list, then attach it to a study for batch simulation.

Instructions

Set up a parametric sweep for a parameter.

Args: parameter_name: Name of the parameter to sweep values: List of parameter values to sweep through model_name: Model name (default: current model) study_name: Study to attach sweep to (default: first study)

Returns: Sweep configuration confirmation, or error message

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": {
      "parameter_name": "<parameter_name>",
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "param_sweep_setup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`parameter_name`	Yes
`values`	Yes
`model_name`	No
`study_name`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions return values (configuration or error) but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether it modifies existing state. Critical details about behavior are missing.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is reasonably concise but includes unnecessary sections like 'Args:' and 'Returns:' that add no value. The core information is dense but could be more streamlined without the docstring format.

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?

Given no output schema and the complexity of a parametric sweep, the description fails to explain prerequisites, error conditions, or the overall process. It lacks crucial context for correct usage.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds some meaning beyond the schema by noting defaults (e.g., 'model_name: Model name (default: current model)'). However, explanations for 'values' and 'study_name' are minimal, not fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states it sets up a parametric sweep for a parameter, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like param_set or param_list, which could cause ambiguity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context for prerequisites (e.g., model/study must exist) or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server