Mechanical MCP Server

by codersag

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

list_boundary_conditions

Lists all boundary conditions for a given analysis index to inspect or validate an ANSYS Mechanical simulation.

Instructions

List all boundary conditions. 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": "list_boundary_conditions"
  }
}

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

C2.6/5.0

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. 'List' implies a safe read, but nothing is said about scope, whether results are tied to a specific analysis, ordering, or grouping. The only behavior disclosed is the bare fact of enumeration.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, so nothing is padded, but the 'Args: analysis_index' fragment adds no information and reads as under-specification rather than economy. The single useful sentence is doing little work.

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?

The output schema covers the return shape, so that need is met. But with an undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no explanation of what this tool lists relative to the many add_*/list_* siblings, the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 explain analysis_index — but it only restates the parameter name as 'Args: analysis_index'. It does not say which analysis the index refers to, whether it is required despite defaulting to 0, or what happens with an invalid index.

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 and resource: 'List all boundary conditions'. An agent can tell this is a read/enumeration tool. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling list tools (list_named_selections, list_point_masses, list_materials) about what 'boundary conditions' covers in this context.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that it should call this to discover existing boundary conditions before adding supports/forces, which is plausible but unstated.

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