Skip to main content
Glama
using76
by using76

bulc_modify_mesh

Destructive

Modify existing FDS mesh dimensions, cell counts, or properties for fire simulation adjustments in building design workflows.

Instructions

Modify an existing FDS mesh. Change dimensions, cell counts, or other properties.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
meshIdYesMesh ID to modify
xMinNoNew minimum X coordinate in meters
xMaxNoNew maximum X coordinate in meters
yMinNoNew minimum Y coordinate in meters
yMaxNoNew maximum Y coordinate in meters
zMinNoNew minimum Z coordinate in meters
zMaxNoNew maximum Z coordinate in meters
iCellsNoNew number of cells in X direction
jCellsNoNew number of cells in Y direction
kCellsNoNew number of cells in Z direction

Implementation Reference

  • Handler logic for the 'bulc_modify_mesh' tool. Validates the input arguments using ModifyMeshSchema and sends a 'modify_mesh' command to the BULC client via sendCommand.
    case "bulc_modify_mesh": {
      const validated = ModifyMeshSchema.parse(args);
      result = await client.sendCommand({
        action: "modify_mesh",
        params: validated,
      });
      break;
    }
  • Zod validation schema for the input parameters of the 'bulc_modify_mesh' tool.
    const ModifyMeshSchema = z.object({
      meshId: z.string(),
      xMin: z.number().optional(),
      xMax: z.number().optional(),
      yMin: z.number().optional(),
      yMax: z.number().optional(),
      zMin: z.number().optional(),
      zMax: z.number().optional(),
      iCells: z.number().int().positive().optional(),
      jCells: z.number().int().positive().optional(),
      kCells: z.number().int().positive().optional(),
    });
  • MCP tool registration for 'bulc_modify_mesh', including name, description, input schema (JSON schema), and annotations. Part of the exported meshTools array.
    {
      name: "bulc_modify_mesh",
      description:
        "Modify an existing FDS mesh. Change dimensions, cell counts, or other properties.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object" as const,
        properties: {
          meshId: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Mesh ID to modify",
          },
          xMin: {
            type: "number",
            description: "New minimum X coordinate in meters",
          },
          xMax: {
            type: "number",
            description: "New maximum X coordinate in meters",
          },
          yMin: {
            type: "number",
            description: "New minimum Y coordinate in meters",
          },
          yMax: {
            type: "number",
            description: "New maximum Y coordinate in meters",
          },
          zMin: {
            type: "number",
            description: "New minimum Z coordinate in meters",
          },
          zMax: {
            type: "number",
            description: "New maximum Z coordinate in meters",
          },
          iCells: {
            type: "integer",
            description: "New number of cells in X direction",
          },
          jCells: {
            type: "integer",
            description: "New number of cells in Y direction",
          },
          kCells: {
            type: "integer",
            description: "New number of cells in Z direction",
          },
        },
        required: ["meshId"],
      },
      annotations: {
        readOnlyHint: false,
        destructiveHint: true,
      },
    },
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate this is a destructive write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true), which the description doesn't explicitly state. The description adds context about what properties can be modified, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether changes are reversible, if there are validation constraints, or what happens to dependent data. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key properties. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive modification tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context such as what 'other properties' entails, validation rules, error conditions, or expected outcomes. Annotations cover safety but don't compensate for the missing behavioral and output details needed for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description mentions 'dimensions' and 'cell counts', which map to parameters like xMin/xMax and iCells, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., units, constraints, or relationships between parameters).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Modify') and resource ('existing FDS mesh'), and specifies what can be changed ('dimensions, cell counts, or other properties'). It distinguishes from creation tools like 'bulc_create_mesh' by focusing on modification, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other modification tools like 'bulc_modify_room' or 'bulc_modify_wall'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing mesh), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new meshes), or comparisons with sibling tools like 'bulc_auto_mesh' for automated mesh generation or 'bulc_delete_mesh' for removal.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/using76/BULC_MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server