Creates a mesh for a simulation case at coarse, normal, or fine size and returns node and element counts plus mesh quality so you can verify geometry before solving.
Generate the mesh now (run_simulation also meshes automatically when needed). Returns node/element counts and quality.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | ||
| case_id | Yes | ||
| language | No | ja |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the agent knows this is a state-changing local operation. The description adds the return payload (node/element counts and quality), which is useful, but says nothing about whether an existing mesh is replaced, whether geometry must be imported first, or how long it takes.
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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and the immediately relevant alternative, with zero filler. The parenthetical is well spent because it prevents a redundant call.
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 description covers the action, the alternative and the return values, which is decent since there is no output schema. However, for a mutation tool with three completely undocumented parameters (including an unexplained 'language'), and no statement about preconditions or effect on existing mesh data, it leaves meaningful gaps.
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% and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all: 'size' is only inferable from its coarse/normal/fine enum, 'case_id' is undocumented, and the 'language' parameter is genuinely puzzling in a meshing tool and goes completely unexplained. The one sentence about return values does not compensate for three undescribed 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Generate the mesh') and explicitly notes the overlap with run_simulation, which meshes automatically. That distinguishes it from at least one sibling, though it never explains the domain of the mesh or when an explicit mesh is preferable to the automatic one.
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?
It names the alternative path ('run_simulation also meshes automatically when needed'), which gives an agent a real decision point. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance, e.g. 'use this to inspect mesh quality before committing to a solve, or to re-mesh at a different size'.
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