Mechanical MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

add_fixed_support

Apply a fixed support boundary condition to a named selection in an ANSYS Mechanical analysis. Specify the named selection and optional analysis index to constrain geometry.

Instructions

Add Fixed Support to a named selection. Args: named_selection, analysis_index

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": {
      "named_selection": "<named_selection>"
    },
    "name": "add_fixed_support"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`analysis_index`	No
`named_selection`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails. It does not disclose that this is a mutating boundary-condition action, whether a Mechanical connection/session is required, or how the named selection is resolved.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted prose. The trailing 'Args:' list is largely redundant with the schema, but the overall structure is tight.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations the description omits critical context such as prerequisites and the meaning of its inputs. It is too thin for an agent to invoke 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 restates the parameter names ('Args: named_selection, analysis_index') without adding meaning. It does not explain what a named selection is or what analysis_index selects, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Add) and resource (Fixed Support) plus the target scope (a named selection), so an agent can tell it apart from most siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related add_frictionless_support, but the resource name is clear.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like add_frictionless_support or add_displacement. The phrase 'to a named selection' gives application context but is not usage guidance.

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