Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fluent-mcp-server

fluent-mcp-server

by jiweiqi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_manual_link

Retrieve a direct URL to any section within ANSYS Fluent manuals (user guide, theory, TUI, UDF). Specify the manual name and optional section path to get the exact link needed.

Instructions

Get direct link to a specific Fluent manual or section.

Args: manual: Manual name (user_guide, tui, theory, udf) section: Optional section path (e.g., "turbulence", "file/read-case")

Returns: Direct URL to the manual or section

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": {
      "manual": "<manual>"
    },
    "name": "get_manual_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
manualYes
sectionNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description clearly states the input parameters and the return value (direct URL). For a read-only tool with no annotations, it adequately covers behavior. No side effects or additional traits disclosed, but sufficient for the simple operation.

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 concise: a single sentence summarizing purpose followed by clearly structured Args and Returns sections. All information is relevant and efficiently presented.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters with examples, and return type. Given the tool's simplicity and existing output schema, it is complete enough. Minor gap: no mention of behavior for invalid manual names.

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 description provides essential semantics: it lists valid manual names (user_guide, tui, theory, udf) and gives examples for section paths. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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's purpose: retrieving a direct link to a specific manual or section. It lists valid manual names and the optional section path, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_topics and search_help.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for getting a direct URL, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or exclude other cases. No when-not or alternatives are mentioned.

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