Create a new empty COMSOL model to start a multiphysics simulation. Optionally name it and set it as the current model.
Create a new empty COMSOL model.
Args: name: Optional name for the model (auto-generated if not provided) set_current: Whether to set this as the current active model (default: True)
Returns: Model info including name, or error message
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| set_current | 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, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the action and arguments without detailing side effects, prerequisites, or resource impacts. For a tool that likely requires an active COMSOL connection, this omission is significant.
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 efficient: one main sentence then a compact list for arguments. Every element serves a purpose with no fluff.
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?
While the description covers the creation action and arguments, it omits prerequisite context (e.g., need for an active connection). The return value is vaguely described as 'Model info' without structure details, but that is acceptable for a simple create tool.
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?
The Args section adds meaningful context beyond the schema, explaining the auto-generation of name and the default of set_current. Despite the schema having 0% property descriptions, the description compensates well.
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 explicitly states it creates a new empty COMSOL model, which is a specific verb+resource combination. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like model_clone or model_load.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like model_clone or model_load. Usage is only implied by the name and description, lacking when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.