Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ls-dyna-mcp

ls-dyna-mcp

by codersag
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_lsdyna_job

Retrieve a specific LS-DYNA job and the tail of its lsrun.stdout.txt log to check solver progress and diagnose issues.

Instructions

One job plus the tail of its lsrun.stdout.txt. Args: job_id, tail_lines

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_lsdyna_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYes
tail_linesNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.2

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return composition ('one job plus the tail of its lsrun.stdout.txt') but says nothing about read-only behavior, permissions, error handling, or any cap on tail_lines.

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 very short and front-loads the returned output, but the 'Args' fragment merely duplicates schema fields. The overall phrasing is too terse to be fully self-explanatory.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be fully described, but the lack of annotations and 0% schema description coverage leaves gaps in usage and parameter meaning. With many overlapping job and solver-file siblings, the definition is not complete enough to route confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only repeats the parameter names ('job_id, tail_lines') without explaining what job_id identifies or that tail_lines controls how many stdout lines are returned. It does not compensate for the missing 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 states that the tool returns one LSDyna job plus the tail of that job's lsrun.stdout.txt, which is a specific resource and output. It does not use an explicit verb or distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as list_lsdyna_jobs or tail_solver_file.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided, despite siblings like list_lsdyna_jobs, tail_solver_file, and get_solve_status that overlap with this tool. The agent must infer that this is for inspecting a single job and its stdout tail.

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