Retrieve all named selections defined in the ANSYS Mechanical model to inspect their names and contents for review or further processing.
[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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says '[READ ONLY]' which is a hint of safety, but it does not disclose return format, potential errors, or side effects. Since it is an inspection tool, it likely does not modify data, but that is not explicitly stated beyond the hint.
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 extremely concise, with just one sentence. It is front-loaded with '[READ ONLY]' and clear action. It earns its place, but could benefit from a note on what specific data it inspects.
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?
Given that there are many sibling tools for inspecting different aspects of the model, this description is incomplete because it does not specify what is returned (a list of named selections? their properties?). The output schema exists but is not provided to the agent, so the description must compensate. The description is adequate for a trivial no-parameter tool, but lacks specifics.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description's job for parameters is trivial. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description does not need to explain parameters. It correctly provides a high-level function, which is sufficient.
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 the tool inspects Mechanical model data, which is a clear purpose. However, it is generic compared to siblings that are more specific (e.g., get_geometry_bodies, get_material_assignments). The name 'get_named_selections' suggests it retrieves named selections, but the description does not specify this, so the tool could be confused with other inspection tools.
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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling inspection tools. For example, it does not distinguish from get_model_summary or get_geometry_bodies. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a connected Mechanical session or an open project, which would help the agent decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.