Mechanical MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

add_total_deformation

Add a Total Deformation result to an ANSYS Mechanical analysis by setting mode and analysis index for post-processing evaluation.

Instructions

Add Total Deformation result. Args: mode (0=not modal), analysis_index

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "add_total_deformation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No
`analysis_index`	No

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 it discloses almost nothing: not whether an analysis must be solved first, not what the result attaches to, not what happens on repeat calls, and not the effect of the 'mode' flag beyond 'not modal'.

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 clauses with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing args list is efficiently structured, though the overall brevity reflects under-specification as much as economy.

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, 0% schema coverage, and a near-identical sibling, the description is too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently or pick it over the alternatives.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains 'mode (0=not modal)' but gives no meaning for 'analysis_index' (base, indexing scheme, or what it selects), leaving one of two parameters completely undocumented.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Add Total Deformation result' tells the agent it creates a result object of that type. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling add_total_deformation_all_modes, which an agent could easily confuse it with; only the parenthetical 'mode (0=not modal)' hints at the single-vs-all-modes difference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus add_total_deformation_all_modes, add_directional_deformation, or the other result-adding siblings. The only context is the terse '0=not modal' note, which is a parameter value, not usage guidance.

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