Ansys Rocky MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Rocky Set Motion

rocky_set_motion

Apply rotation or translation motion to selected study objects by setting velocity, targets, and start/stop times for DEM simulations.

Instructions

Apply a rotation or translation motion to one or more study objects.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes	Either ``"rotation"`` or ``"translation"``.
`unit`	No	Unit of the angular velocity, for example ``"rad/s"`` or ``"deg/s"``. Translations always use ``"m/s"``.	rad/s
`targets`	Yes	Identifiers of the objects the motion is applied to, for example ``["surface_1"]``.
`stop_time`	No	Stop time of the motion in seconds.
`start_time`	No	Start time of the motion in seconds.
`linear_velocity`	No	Linear velocity vector as ``[vx, vy, vz]``. Required for a translation.
`angular_velocity`	No	Angular velocity vector as ``[wx, wy, wz]``. Required for a rotation.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a mutation (applying motion) but does not disclose side effects, persistence, permission requirements, whether existing motion is replaced, or how the study state is affected.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is concise, though its brevity leaves it with little structural support for a complex 7-parameter mutation tool.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with seven parameters and no annotations. Although the schema and output schema are rich, the description still lacks essential context about usage conditions, behavioral effects, and the rotation/translation setup, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains all seven parameters in detail. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 states a clear action and resource: applying a rotation or translation motion to study objects. It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related setup or simulation tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. It only communicates the operation itself, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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