Skip to main content
Glama

FEM Add Constraint

fem_add_constraint

Apply structural or thermal constraints to faces and edges by tag—forces, pressure, displacement, temperature, or heat flux—and keep them valid through geometry edits.

Instructions

Add a constraint by face/edge tag (Slice 1).

kind: structural: 'fixed' | 'force' | 'pressure' | 'displacement' thermal: 'temperature' | 'heatflux' | 'initial_temperature' refs: list of {handle, tag} dicts; 'tag' may be a face tag (f_...) or edge tag (e_...). Resolved against the live shape so refs survive unrelated geometry edits.

For 'force': force (N), optional direction {handle, edge|tag}. For 'pressure': pressure (MPa). For 'displacement': x/y/z (mm) or x_free/y_free/z_free. For 'temperature' / 'initial_temperature': temperature (°C / K). For 'heatflux': flux_type ('DFlux'|'Convection'|'Radiation'), and DFlux: flux (W/m²); Convection: ambient_temp (°C) + film_coef (W/m²K); Radiation: ambient_temp + emissivity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNo
yNo
zNo
fluxNo
kindYes
nameNo
refsYes
forceNo
x_freeNo
y_freeNo
z_freeNo
analysisYes
pressureNo
reversedNo
directionNo
film_coefNo
flux_typeNo
emissivityNo
temperatureNo
ambient_tempNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds a useful behavioral detail: refs are resolved against the live shape and survive unrelated geometry edits. However, it does not disclose validation side effects, whether existing constraints are replaced, or failure modes.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and grouping parameter details by kind. The unexplained 'Slice 1' is a minor distraction, but otherwise there is no filler and every section earns its place.

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?

Given 20 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description covers most parameter semantics and units but leaves the required 'analysis' parameter unexplained. It also lacks usage context and return-value expectations, which is a significant gap for a complex mutation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter-semantics burden and compensates well: it explains kind values, refs structure, per-kind parameter combinations, and units. The main gap is that the required 'analysis' parameter is entirely undocumented, and 'name'/'reversed' are not explained.

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 states a specific action ('Add') and resource ('constraint') and specifies the selection mechanism (face/edge tags). It clearly distinguishes this from generic sketch constraints by the FEM context, though it does not explicitly contrast it with other FEM setup tools.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like contact_setup, fem_set_material, or other FEM tools. The phrase 'Slice 1' hints at a workflow stage, but the intended sequencing is left entirely to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools