List available COMSOL Multiphysics physics interfaces by category to choose the correct physics for simulation setup.
Get a list of available physics interfaces organized by category.
Returns: Dictionary of physics categories and their interfaces
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the return format (dictionary of categories and interfaces) but lacks information on side effects (none expected), performance, or required state (e.g., need a connection). The description implies a read operation but does not explicitly state it.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, but the description explains the return type (dictionary of categories and interfaces). However, it lacks context about how the returned data integrates with other tools (e.g., using the interface names in physics_add). Given the complexity, it is minimally viable but could be more helpful.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given no parameters exist. According to the rule, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4.
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 it retrieves available physics interfaces organized by category. The verb 'Get' and resource 'available physics interfaces' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like physics_list (which likely lists interfaces in a model) and physics_add (which adds a physics interface).
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it could suggest using physics_get_available before physics_add to see available options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.