Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
palace-tools

palace-tools

by benjhardy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

palace_mesh_report

Report mesh quality (minSICN, gamma), tetrahedra counts, and exact Nedelec unknowns from a Palace .msh file to verify simulation readiness.

Instructions

Quality (minSICN, gamma), tets and exact Nedelec unknowns of a .msh file.

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": {
      "mesh": "<mesh>"
    },
    "name": "palace_mesh_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
meshYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose what the tool computes (quality metrics, tet counts, Nedelec unknowns), which is core behavioral content. However, it omits whether it reads a file, requires a valid mesh, is read-only, or how it handles invalid input, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the reported metrics. The telegraphic parenthetical style is efficient, though slightly cryptic for an agent unfamiliar with the domain jargon.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description reasonably covers the return content, and blocking full output details is unnecessary. It still omits the input parameter's meaning and any usage context, leaving the definition adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'mesh' parameter. Mentioning '.msh file' hints that the parameter is a mesh file reference, but the description does not clarify whether it is a path, an ID, or a required format, so the compensation is only partial.

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 names a specific resource (a .msh file) and enumerates the exact quantities reported: mesh quality via minSICN and gamma, tetrahedra counts, and Nedelec unknowns. It conveys the essence of a mesh-analysis report, though it is stated as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource and does not distinguish itself from siblings like palace_mesh_template.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as palace_mesh_template. An agent must infer its role purely from the reported metrics.

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