salome-mcp

by gnshb

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

import_mesh

Import mesh from MED, UNV, STL, CGNS, or GMF files into SALOME for simulation and geometry processing.

Instructions

Import mesh from MED/UNV/STL/CGNS/GMF.

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": {
      "filepath": "<filepath>"
    },
    "name": "import_mesh"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	No
`format`	No	auto
`filepath`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Import mesh' without explaining side effects, such as whether the mesh is added to the study, potential errors, or required environment (e.g., Salome). This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies the study state.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified, omitting critical information about parameters and behavior. It is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has three parameters, no annotations, and only a minimal description. An output schema exists, but the description does not cover return values or integration context (e.g., where the mesh is imported into). For a tool that imports mesh into a study, the description is too incomplete to guide correct usage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters (filepath, name, format). The format list overlaps with the 'format' parameter but does not clarify its default value ('auto') or how 'name' is used. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool imports mesh files and lists the supported formats (MED, UNV, STL, CGNS, GMF). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_geometry (imports geometry, not mesh) and export_mesh (exports mesh), though it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The format list implies file types, but no explicit context or comparison to sibling tools is given.

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