RSAP MCP
Related Servers
Alternatives to RSAP MCP
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables users to control CSI ETABS structural engineering software through Claude, allowing model creation, status checks, and engineering checks via COM automation.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceConnects Claude to a running Autodesk Civil 3D instance via COM automation to perform drawing, surface, alignment, COGO point, line, and corridor operations.7MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables Claude to directly control Midas Civil NX for bridge structural analysis, allowing users to model, apply loads, and perform analysis through natural language descriptions.2MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables programmatic control of AutoCAD through COM automation, allowing natural language commands to create structures, manage layers, and manipulate entities via MCP clients like Claude.62Apache 2.0
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional that enables AI assistants to read model data, loads, and analysis results from an open Robot session, with optional write and calculation tools.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables users to control AutoCAD, GstarCAD, or ZWCAD through natural language via Claude Desktop. It provides tools for drawing geometric shapes, adding text and dimensions, and managing CAD files using the Windows COM interface.3MIT
TDQS
Scored across 35 tools
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: define/create/assign/query are cleanly separated, and singular vs. bulk variants (e.g., add_node vs. add_nodes) are clearly named. Even similar results tools (bar_forces vs. bar_force_envelope) differ in purpose and are unambiguous.
All tools share the 'rsap_' prefix and snake_case, but the verb-noun pattern is not universal: results tools (bar_forces, node_displacement, node_reaction, results_summary) omit the verb, while most others use verb_first (add_, list_, define_). This mixed convention is readable but not fully predictable.
35 tools is above the typical well-scoped range, but the domain (full structural analysis lifecycle) justifies the breadth. The count feels heavy yet each tool covers a distinct need; a smaller set would require awkward multi-purpose tools.
The set covers the core workflow: project management, geometry (nodes/bars), properties, supports, loads, analysis, and results. Notable gaps exist for shell/plate modeling (despite project types including shell) and there are no update/edit tools for existing objects, but the main frame/bar analysis pathway is complete.