Set the active model for subsequent operations, ensuring all commands apply to the correct COMSOL model.
Set the current active model for subsequent operations.
Args: model_name: Name of the model to set as current
Returns: Confirmation or error message
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_name | Yes |
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 carry the full burden. It states it sets the current active model but does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is destructive, error handling for non-existent models, or state changes. The Returns section mentions 'confirmation or error message' but lacks detail.
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 concise with a main sentence and structured Args/Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate for a simple setter. However, it omits key contextual details like when to use it, prerequisites, and error handling, making it incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke without additional context.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by stating 'Name of the model to set as current' for the model_name parameter. However, it does not specify if it's a name, ID, or any constraints like case sensitivity or existence. The baseline is higher due to low coverage, but the description only partially compensates.
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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'current active model', and explains the purpose 'for subsequent operations'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like model_list, model_create, etc., which have different actions.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., model must exist) or when not to use it. No comparison to sibling tools is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.