Runs the CalculiX solver on a specified analysis and blocks until the solve completes. Returns the working directory and final status, with the workdir defaulting to a temporary AnkusDrive FEM path.
Run the CalculiX solver on an analysis. Blocks until the solve finishes.
workdir defaults to <TMPDIR>/ankusdrive_fem. Returns {workdir, status}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workdir | No | ||
| analysis | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the synchronous blocking nature ('Blocks until the solve finishes') and the return shape {workdir, status}, but says nothing about failure modes, what status values mean, expected runtime, or auth/permission needs for a long-running solve.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the blocking behavior, then the params/return. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 solver-execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is adequate but thin. It covers the return shape and blocking behavior, but omits prerequisites, status semantics, and error/timeout handling that an agent needs before invoking a solve.
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 must compensate. It clarifies the `workdir` default path, adding real value, but leaves `analysis` unexplained — the agent cannot tell whether it is a name, handle, or id. Partial compensation across two parameters.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Run the CalculiX solver on an analysis.' Names the concrete solver and the input, so the agent knows it is executing an FEM solve. It does not explicitly position itself against sibling solvers like fem_modal or fem_buckling, which limits sibling differentiation.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus the many other fem_* and solver-submit siblings, and no prerequisites (mesh, material, constraints must already exist). The agent is left to infer the workflow context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.