Mechanical MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_point_masses

Retrieves all point masses in an ANSYS Mechanical model, including center of gravity, mass, pinball radius, and scoped named selections.

Instructions

List all Point Masses with CG, mass, pinball and scoped named selection.

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_point_masses"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 all' implies a safe read and it discloses the returned fields, but it says nothing about scope (active model only?), permissions, pagination, or confirm that the call is non-mutating. The field enumeration partly duplicates what the output schema already carries.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Minor cost: jargon and abbreviations ('CG', 'pinball', 'scoped named selection') are compressed into a list that may be opaque without domain knowledge.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-param list tool with an output schema, the description covers what the call returns conceptually without needing to restate the schema. The only real gap is that no safety/auth behavior is stated, though 'List all' is an unambiguous read.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter guidance.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Point Masses') and enumerates the returned attributes (CG, mass, pinball, scoped named selection). It does not name or distinguish itself from near-neighbours like convert_prefix_to_point_mass or convert_part_to_point_mass, but the verb alone makes the read-vs-create distinction clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, but for a zero-parameter enumeration tool the usage ('list all point masses') is implied directly by the verb and resource. No exclusions or preconditions are offered.

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