List all features in a COMSOL geometry sequence, returning their names and types. Use it to inspect geometry structure for a given geometry or model.
List all features in a geometry sequence.
Args: geometry_name: Geometry sequence name (default: first geometry) model_name: Model name (default: current model)
Returns: List of geometry features with their types
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_name | No | ||
| geometry_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'list', implying read-only but not explicitly. It lacks details about side effects or any behavioral traits.
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?
The description is extremely concise with a clear purpose, Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
For a simple list tool, the description is fairly complete, specifying the return type (list of geometry features with types). Given no output schema, this is adequate, though it could elaborate on what constitutes a 'feature'.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful parameter explanations: geometry_name defaults to first geometry, model_name defaults to current model. This goes beyond the schema's titles and defaults.
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 clearly states the tool lists all features in a geometry sequence. It distinguishes from siblings like geometry_list (lists geometries) and geometry_add_feature (adds features).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.