Mechanical MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

add_pressure

Apply a pressure load in Pascals to a named selection in ANSYS Mechanical, optionally targeting a specific analysis index.

Instructions

Add Pressure load in Pascals. Args: named_selection, magnitude_pa, 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>",
      "magnitude_pa": "<magnitude_pa>"
    },
    "name": "add_pressure"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`magnitude_pa`	Yes
`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?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals units (Pascals) but nothing about mutation semantics, whether the named selection must already exist, which analysis the load attaches to, or what happens on repeated calls.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the important detail (unit) first, followed by a compact arg list. No filler, though the bare arg enumeration contributes little and could be trimmed.

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 described, but this is a mutation tool with no annotations, zero schema coverage, and a required named_selection whose existence/validation requirements go unstated. The definition is too thin for an agent to invoke it 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% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It merely lists parameter names ('Args: named_selection, magnitude_pa, analysis_index') without explaining their meaning, format, or expected values, adding essentially nothing beyond the schema keys.

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 + resource ('Add Pressure load') with the unit (Pascals), which cleanly separates it from sibling load tools like add_force, add_moment, or add_standard_gravity. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, keeping it just below a 5.

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, no preconditions, and no alternatives named. An agent gets no help deciding between add_pressure, add_force, or add_remote_force.

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