Create a simulation case from a template ID and apply dotted-path parameter changes at once, enabling consistent model setup before running solvers.
Create a case from a template id (see list_templates). Optional changes = {dotted.path: value} applied at once,
e.g. {"geometry.params.length": "300 mm", "boundaries.x1.force": "2 kN"}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| changes | No | ||
| language | No | ja | |
| template | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds the useful detail that changes are 'applied at once' (atomic application), but says nothing about failure behavior for a bad template id or about the non-idempotent effect of calling twice.
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 core action and prerequisite, then immediately the only non-obvious parameter syntax. The inline examples are the kind of concrete payload detail that genuinely earns its space rather than restating schema facts.
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 no output schema, the description should say what the call returns (e.g. a new case id or the created case object) and does not. It also leaves the `language` parameter entirely unexplained, though the guidance for obtaining a template id and shaping `changes` covers the primary call path.
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%, so the description carries the full burden. It does an excellent job on the hardest parameter by explaining that `changes` is a {dotted.path: value} map applied atomically and giving two concrete dotted-path examples, but it never mentions the `language` parameter (enum ja/en/zh, default ja) or what it affects.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a case from a template id') and routes the agent to list_templates for obtaining that id. It is not compared against near-siblings like clone_case, import_case, or open_example, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 parenthetical '(see list_templates)' gives a concrete prerequisite step for the required template argument, which is clear usage context. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over clone_case or import_case, so it stops short of naming alternatives and exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed