No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 25 tools
Most tools target distinct resources/actions (create_inlet vs create_outlet vs create_surface vs import_wall are clearly separated). However, the reporting cluster is somewhat overlapping: rocky_status, rocky_describe_study, rocky_simulation_status, and rocky_list_processes all surface state information, which could cause hesitation about which to call. The descriptions do help distinguish them (session vs study contents vs solver progress vs object registry), so the overlap is manageable.
Every tool uses the rocky_ prefix followed by a snake_case verb_noun pattern (rocky_create_inlet, rocky_open_project, rocky_set_motion, rocky_run_simulation). Minor noun-only names like rocky_status are still readable and consistent with the resource-query style. No mixed conventions anywhere.
25 tools sits at the heavy end for this surface. The domain (full simulation setup, execution, and post-processing) justifies many of them, but the number is borderline and includes several narrow report tools that could plausibly be consolidated. It is not padded with obviously redundant tools, but it is on the edge of feeling sprawling.
The surface covers connection lifecycle, project CRUD (create/open/save/close), geometry/domain setup, particle and boundary creation, solver configuration, simulation run/status/wait, and post-processing (curves, grid functions, selections). Gaps exist: there are no explicit delete/remove tools for created objects and no material/CFD-coupling tools, but rocky_run_python serves as a deliberate escape hatch for these, so agents can work around them.