Mechanical MCP Server

by codersag

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

delete_named_selection

Removes a named selection from ANSYS Mechanical by its name, allowing cleanup of simulation model definitions.

Instructions

Delete a named selection by name. Args: 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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "delete_named_selection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

C2.6/5.0

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. "Delete" implies a destructive mutation, but the description never says whether the deletion is permanent, what happens to downstream references to the selection, or what errors occur for a missing name.

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 short and front-loads the action, which is good, but the trailing "Args: name" is pure filler that duplicates the input schema and earns no place in the text.

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. However, for a destructive tool with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the description omits the safety and failure-mode context an agent needs before invoking it.

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 there is one required parameter, yet "Args: name" only restates the parameter's identifier. It adds no meaning such as whether the name is case-sensitive, unique, or must match an existing selection.

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 ("Delete a named selection"), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like list_named_selections or suppress_bodies. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with alternatives, so it stops short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus other tools, no prerequisite (e.g., the selection must already exist), and no warning that the operation is irreversible. The only usage information is the redundant "by name" phrase.

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