salome-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

export_mesh

Export a SALOME mesh to MED, UNV, or STL files. Define the mesh reference, target filepath, and output format, with optional ASCII STL and auto dimension settings.

Instructions

Export mesh to MED/UNV/STL.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "mesh_ref": "<mesh_ref>",
      "filepath": "<filepath>"
    },
    "name": "export_mesh"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`format`	No	auto
`filepath`	Yes
`mesh_ref`	Yes
`ascii_stl`	No
`auto_dimension`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning file overwriting, required mesh references, or potential side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's function with no filler. It earns its place by being clear and direct.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the five parameters and absence of annotations, this one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter roles or behavioral details, and the presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing context.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage and five parameters, the description provides no explanation of mesh_ref, filepath, ascii_stl, or auto_dimension. The mention of MED/UNV/STL only hints at the format parameter without clarifying its behavior.

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 'Export mesh to MED/UNV/STL' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb (export) and resource (mesh) plus target formats. This distinguishes it from siblings like export_geometry or import_mesh.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_geometry or create_mesh. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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