Mechanical MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_solve_status

Retrieve the solve status of an ANSYS Mechanical analysis by index to monitor simulation progress and confirm completion.

Instructions

Get solve status. Args: 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": "get_solve_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

C2.4/5.0

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 burden. It does not state whether this is a read-only poll, whether it blocks, what happens if the analysis hasn't been solved, or anything about the returned status values.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, which is good, but the terseness comes at the cost of usefulness. 'Args: analysis_index' is a schema echo rather than meaningful content.

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?

With an output schema present the return values needn't be described, but for a status-query tool in a mechanical analysis workflow the agent still needs to know when the status is meaningful and what the index selects. None of that is covered.

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 only parameter, analysis_index, is not explained (no meaning, no valid range, no default rationale). The description merely repeats the arg name ('Args: analysis_index'), adding no semantic value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a verb+resource ('Get solve status') but is vague about what 'solve status' actually returns and does not differentiate from siblings like solve_analysis or get_mesh_statistics. An agent can infer it relates to a solve, but the description gives no scope detail.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. In a sibling set with solve_analysis and get_model_info, it's unclear whether this should be called before, after, or instead of those tools.

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