Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
COMSOL MCP Server

COMSOL MCP Server

by Zhangyoupeng1996
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

physics_remove

Remove a specified physics interface from a COMSOL model. Provide the physics name and optionally the model name to confirm removal.

Instructions

Remove a physics interface from the model.

Args: physics_name: Name of the physics interface to remove model_name: Model name (default: current model)

Returns: Removal confirmation

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": {
      "physics_name": "<physics_name>"
    },
    "name": "physics_remove"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
physics_nameYes
model_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description does not disclose the destructive nature of removal or any side effects. It merely states 'Removal confirmation' without explaining what that entails. No annotations are present to offset this gap.

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 concise with a clear sentence and an Args block. It is front-loaded with the key action. Minor improvement would be to remove the 'Args' prefix and integrate into prose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on return value format, error handling, or prerequisites like the physics interface needing to exist. For a simple tool with no output schema or annotations, it is adequate but not thorough.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The Args section adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining each parameter: 'physics_name' is described as the name of the physics interface, and 'model_name' includes its default value. Schema coverage is low (0%), so the description compensates effectively.

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 the action ('Remove') and the resource ('a physics interface from the model'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like physics_add and model_remove, which operate on different resources or actions.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, error conditions, or scenarios where removal is inappropriate.

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