Skip to main content
Glama

Thermal Transient Submit

thermal_transient_submit
Destructive

Submit transient thermal FEM analysis via Elmer for analytic slabs, FreeCAD solids, or prepared cases. Get temperature results to validate convection-cooling simulations against analytical solutions.

Instructions

Transient thermal FEM via Elmer, asynchronous. Requires ElmerSolver (apt elmerfem-csc / conda); when absent this returns {ok:false, reason, install} rather than raising. Three modes:

  • Build the analytic-slab case (no solver case prep needed): pass the plane-wall transient — half_thickness_mm, h_conv (W/m²K), duration_s, and either k+rho+cp (SI) or a material name, with optional t_initial_c / t_ambient_c and mesh/step counts n_elements / n_steps. The handler writes the 1-D conduction case (symmetry at the centre, convection at the surface), runs ElmerSolver, and returns the centre/surface temperatures — the same plane-wall BVP thermal_transient_1d solves analytically, so the two are directly comparable (the kickoff's relative gate).

  • Solve a real FreeCAD solid — the geometry bridge: pass a body handle plus convection_faces (1-based indices into the solid's faces; those faces get the h_conv/t_ambient_c convective BC, every other face is adiabatic), the physics (h_conv, duration_s, k+rho+cp or material), and an optional char_length_mm Gmsh element size and element_order ('1st'|'2nd'). The solid is Gmsh-meshed and solved as a true 3-D body (ElmerGrid + ElmerSolver); the result's {t_max_c, t_min_c} are the interior/convective-surface temperatures (for a slab-like body, directly gateable against thermal_transient_1d). Prefer element_order='2nd' for a sharp transient — quadratic tets resolve the wall gradient accurately even on a coarse mesh.

  • Run a prepared case_dir containing its own .sif + mesh.

Returns the degradation dict, or {job_id, status, cache_hit}; poll job_result for {ok, returncode, solver, case_dir, stdout_tail} plus, for the slab case, {t_center_c, t_surface_c, n_steps_written}, for a body {t_max_c, t_min_c, nodes, tets} (or {scalars_final} for a prepared case).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kNo
cpNo
rhoNo
sifNocase.sif
bodyNo
h_convNo
n_stepsNo
case_dirNo
materialNo
duration_sNo
n_elementsNo
t_ambient_cNo
t_initial_cNo
element_orderNo
char_length_mmNo
convection_facesNo
half_thickness_mmNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it is asynchronous, returns {ok:false, reason, install} when ElmerSolver is absent rather than raising, writes files, runs external solvers, and returns degradation dict or job_id/status/cache_hit. It also discloses the return payload structure for each mode. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 long but well-structured with clear mode headers and bullet-like formatting. Every sentence adds value: prerequisites, mode-specific parameters, return values, and a practical recommendation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and prerequisite. Slightly verbose but justified given 17 parameters and three modes.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (17 params, 3 modes, async behavior, external solver dependency), the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, mode selection, parameter semantics, return values, and even a numerical recommendation. Minor gaps: it doesn't explain the sif parameter explicitly, and doesn't detail the degradation dict contents, but these are minor against the overall completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of half_thickness_mm, h_conv, duration_s, k/rho/cp, material, t_initial_c, t_ambient_c, n_elements, n_steps, body, convection_faces, char_length_mm, element_order, and case_dir. It does not explicitly explain sif, but the case_dir mode implies it. This is strong compensation for zero schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool performs transient thermal FEM via Elmer asynchronously, and distinguishes three distinct modes: analytic-slab, FreeCAD solid geometry bridge, and prepared case_dir. It names the specific verb (submit), resource (thermal transient FEM), and differentiates from siblings like thermal_transient_1d and thermal_radiation_submit.

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?

The description explicitly explains when to use each mode: analytic-slab for plane-wall BVP comparable to thermal_transient_1d, body mode for real FreeCAD solids with convection faces, and case_dir for prepared cases. It also gives a concrete recommendation to prefer element_order='2nd' for sharp transients, and notes the ElmerSolver prerequisite and fallback behavior.

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