Retrieve a concise summary of the active ANSYS Mechanical model, including its key objects and state, to support read-only inspection and analysis.
[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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The explicit '[READ ONLY]' prefix and the word 'Inspect' clearly signal a non-mutating operation. It does not add details about prerequisites or return behavior, but the key safety trait is present for a parameterless read-only tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the read-only signal appears at the start.
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?
The tool is simple, has no parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to enumerate return values. However, given the large sibling set of model-inspection tools, the vague phrase 'Mechanical model data' does little to clarify what summary content is returned or when this tool is the right choice.
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?
The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters for the description to clarify. The 0-param baseline of 4 applies.
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 states a specific action and resource ('Inspect Mechanical model data') and marks the tool as read-only. However, it does not differentiate from the many sibling get_* tools such as get_geometry_bodies or get_result_summary, so it falls short of a 5.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_tree, get_mesh_statistics, or get_result_summary. The description only restates the tool's purpose and provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.