Extract summary results from a FEM analysis, including maximum stress, displacement, and top stress nodes, to evaluate mechanical designs.
Extract summary results from an analysis.
Returns {max_vonmises_mpa, max_displacement_mm, max_displacement_vector, top_stress_nodes: [{node, vonmises_mpa, displacement_mm}, ...]}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top_n | No | ||
| analysis | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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. It discloses the return structure, which is helpful, but doesn't mention whether the analysis must be completed first, whether it's read-only, or any side effects. With no annotations, this is a moderate gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and front-loads the purpose, followed by the return shape. It is efficient with no wasted words, though the return structure could be formatted more clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the return shape but lacks parameter semantics, prerequisites, and behavioral context. It is minimally adequate but missing key details an agent would need.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It doesn't explain what the 'analysis' parameter expects (e.g., an analysis ID or name) or what 'top_n' controls beyond the implied default. The return schema mentions top_stress_nodes but doesn't map to the top_n parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Extract summary results from an analysis'), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like fem_result_probe or fem_modal_results. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage is that this is used after running an analysis, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as fem_result_probe. An agent must infer context from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.