Mechanical MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

assign_material

Assign a specified material to a named body in ANSYS Mechanical simulations to define its physical properties for analysis.

Instructions

Assign material to a body. Args: body_name, material_name

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": {
      "body_name": "<body_name>",
      "material_name": "<material_name>"
    },
    "name": "assign_material"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body_name`	Yes
`material_name`	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. It does not disclose whether the operation overwrites an existing material assignment, what permissions are needed, or any side effects of the mutation.

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?

It is appropriately short and front-loads the purpose, but the 'Args: body_name, material_name' line is pure duplication of the schema and consumes half the text without adding information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the core intent is conveyed. Still, as an annotation-free mutation tool it omits mutation semantics and the logical prerequisite of an existing material.

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, but it only repeats the two parameter names verbatim. No format, source, or existence requirement is explained for body_name or material_name.

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 combination ('Assign material to a body') that an agent can distinguish from sibling tools like list_materials. However, it offers no differentiation about when this is appropriate relative to other material/setup operations.

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 prerequisites, no alternatives. It does not tell the agent that the material likely must already exist (list_materials) or that the body must exist before assignment.

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