Retrieve material assignments for model bodies or parts in an ANSYS Mechanical model, enabling read-only inspection of material definitions.
[READ ONLY] Inspect Mechanical model data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly labels the operation as '[READ ONLY]' and uses 'Inspect,' which communicates non-mutating behavior. This is useful because annotations are absent, though it does not disclose any further behavioral details or edge conditions.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with the read-only hint front-loaded. However, the wording is generic enough that it could describe almost any inspection tool, so brevity sacrifices specificity.
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 zero parameters and an output schema present, invocation complexity is lowched. Still, the description does not explain what material assignments are or when to prefer this over similar inspection tools, leaving an incomplete picture for a sibling-rich context.
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?
This tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly avoids inventing nonexistent inputs.
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?
The description says 'Inspect Mechanical model data,' which is broad and does not explicitly mention material assignments. This does not distinguish the tool from siblings like get_model_summary or get_geometry_bodies, so the agent cannot infer what data will actually be returned.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many get_* siblings. The 'READ ONLY' label adds safety context but gives no selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.