Load a solved FEMM model's results into the post-processor without re-solving. Use it to access prior field data for analysis; fails if the model was never solved.
Load the existing solution of the current (already solved) model into the post-processor (xi_loadsolution) without re-solving. Fails if the model was never solved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | No | main |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the failure condition and that no re-solve occurs, but says nothing about whether loading is idempotent, what state it changes, or whether it requires an active session.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with the core action and the key failure mode front-loaded; no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a post-processor load tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and its main failure mode. The gap is the undocumented session parameter, which is the only input and is left entirely unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the single 'session' parameter (default 'main') is undocumented in both schema and description. For a 1-param tool at 0% coverage, the description should explain what the session selector means but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Load the existing solution ... into the post-processor') and clarifies it does not re-solve, which implicitly separates it from femm_solve. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it complements.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It states a precondition ('Fails if the model was never solved') and distinguishes from re-solving, which implies the use case of post-processing an already-solved model. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over alternatives such as femm_solve or the various result tools (point_values, block_integral).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.