List stable COMSOL Java mesh sequence tags and their components to identify usable mesh labels for simulation workflows.
List mesh sequences by stable COMSOL Java tag.
Args: component_name: Component name (default: all components) model_name: Model name (default: current model)
Returns: Mesh sequence tags, components, and usable labels
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_name | No | ||
| component_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return content (tags, components, usable labels), but says nothing about permissions, pagination, scope limits, or what happens when no mesh exists. For a list tool this is minimal but under-specified.
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?
Very tight and front-loaded: a one-line purpose followed by clean Args/Returns blocks. No wasted sentences, though the Returns block is arguably redundant given its brevity.
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?
No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must stand alone; it names the return fields but does not describe their structure. Adequate for a simple two-parameter read tool, but leaves behavioral and format gaps unaddressed.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain both parameters plus defaults ('default: all components', 'default: current model'). This adds meaning the bare schema lacks, though the default values slightly differ in spirit from the schema's null defaults and no format details are given.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List mesh sequences') with the added scoping detail 'by stable COMSOL Java tag', which signals the identifier style. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like mesh_create_sequence and mesh_info, though it does not explicitly contrast with mesh_info, the other mesh read tool.
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 description implies listing use but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no indication of when to prefer it over mesh_info or mesh_create_sequence. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.