Skip to main content
Glama
gchen19

AnkusDrive

by gchen19
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Plastic Collapse

plastic_collapse
Read-only

Calculate exact plastic-hinge collapse moment and load for a solid rectangular beam, then compare margins to yield and collapse to validate perfectly-plastic FEM results.

Instructions

Exact plastic-hinge collapse of a solid rectangular beam (NO solver) — the closed-form twin the perfectly-plastic CalculiX solve (fem_set_nonlinear_material) is gated against. The beam bends about the width_mm axis (depth = height_mm). σ_y from yield_mpa or a Materials-DB material. Elastic modulus S = b·h²/6, plastic modulus Z = b·h²/4, shape factor Z/S = 1.5; yield moment M_y = σ_y·S, fully-plastic moment M_p = σ_y·Z. support maps the collapse moment to a point load: 'cantilever' (M = P·L) or 'simply_supported' (central, M = P·L/4). With load_n the applied moment and its margins to M_y / M_p (and the regime: elastic / partially_plastic / collapsed) are returned. A perfectly-plastic FEM solve caps the surface stress at σ_y and loses equilibrium at M_p; linear theory climbs past both — that contrast is the gate. Escalate to fem_set_nonlinear_material for non-rectangular sections or partial-plasticity fields.

Returns {support, S_elastic_mm3, Z_plastic_mm3, shape_factor, yield_mpa, yield_moment_nmm, plastic_moment_nmm, yield_load_n, collapse_load_n, applied_moment_nmm, margin_to_yield, margin_to_collapse, regime, fidelity, band_pct, valid_range_ok, warnings, escalate_to}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
load_nNo
supportNocantilever
materialNo
width_mmYes
height_mmYes
length_mmYes
yield_mpaNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description discloses the analytical nature, the exact formulas used (S = b·h²/6, Z = b·h²/4, M_y, M_p), the support-condition mapping, the regime classification, and the gating contrast with the FEM solve. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone could not provide.

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 dense and technically packed, but every sentence contributes meaningful information. It is front-loaded with purpose and math, though the length is high; this is justified by the tool's complexity rather than padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description fully enumerates the returned fields, including margins, regime, fidelity, warnings, and escalation hints. It also names the relevant sibling and the boundary of applicability, making the tool self-contained for an agent.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the prose must carry parameter meaning, and it does: width_mm/height_mm/length_mm geometry roles, support mapping, load_n as applied load, yield_mpa or material as the yield source. Every one of the seven parameters is effectively explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific operation (exact plastic-hinge collapse of a solid rectangular beam), explicitly notes 'NO solver', and contrasts the tool with its closed-form FEM sibling. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from the many analysis tools nearby.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly frames the tool as the analytical twin of `fem_set_nonlinear_material` and states the escalation rule: use the FEM tool for non-rectangular sections or partial-plasticity fields. This gives the agent a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use decision path.

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