Extract headline FEA results from finished Abaqus jobs: peak von Mises stress, displacement, plastic strain, and net reaction force from the .odb file.
Extract and report headline results (peak von Mises stress, peak displacement, plastic strain / yielding, net reaction force) from a finished job's .odb.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It communicates a prerequisite (finished job) and implies a read-only reporting operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or behavior on unfinished or missing jobs.
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?
A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource while enumerating the exact outputs. There is no filler, and every clause earns its place.
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 supplies the source (.odb), the precondition (finished job), and the set of returned headline results. The output schema presumably covers the return shape, so the main remaining gap is behavioral detail like error handling, which is modest for a simple extraction tool.
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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description never mentions job_name beyond the general 'job' context. The parameter is self-explanatory as a string identifier, but the description adds no format, validation, or usage detail beyond the schema's bare type.
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 uses a specific verb ('Extract and report') and names a concrete resource ('a finished job's .odb'), followed by an explicit list of the headline metrics. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_simulation, get_job_status, and read_job_file.
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 phrase 'from a finished job's .odb' gives a clear condition for when to call this tool: the job must already be complete. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is strong enough for an agent to determine when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.