Generate an XY shell mesh in LS-PrePost, verify node/element counts, and save a keyword mesh for use as a partial model, not a full analysis deck.
Create an XY shell mesh in native LS-PrePost, verify counts and save a new keyword mesh. Not a complete analysis deck.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nx | Yes | ||
| ny | Yes | ||
| size | Yes | ||
| units | Yes | ||
| origin | No | ||
| part_id | No | ||
| node_start | No | ||
| element_start | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful side effect (it saves a new keyword mesh, i.e. writes output) and the internal verification step, and it scopes the tool as not a complete deck. However it omits where the mesh is written, required environment/auth, and whether existing files are overwritten.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the scope caveat last. Efficient with no filler, though it is quite terse given the schema complexity it must support.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It conveys the operation's outcome but nothing about parameter meaning or write behavior that an agent needs to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters; nothing in the schema explains nx, ny, size, units, origin, or the start-index fields. The description mentions an 'XY' mesh but adds no meaning about grid counts, sizing, units, or indexing conventions, leaving the agent to infer all parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Create an XY shell mesh in native LS-PrePost', and adds that it verifies counts and saves a keyword mesh. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_elastic_material or inspect_model, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The scope caveat 'Not a complete analysis deck' gives implied usage context about what the tool produces, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance nor any named alternative for building a full deck.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.