List all physics interfaces defined in a COMSOL model, optionally by model name, to inspect or configure simulation physics.
List all physics interfaces defined in a model.
Args: model_name: Model name (default: current model)
Returns: List of physics interface names
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_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, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool lists interfaces, implying a read-only operation, but does not describe side effects, authorization needs, error handling for missing models, or other important behaviors.
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, using two sentences to state the purpose and one sentence per parameter and return. Every sentence adds value with no 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality. It explains the parameter and return value. Minor gaps like error handling or behavior with invalid model names are acceptable at this complexity level.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the description to explain the parameter. It clarifies that model_name defaults to the current model, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it could elaborate on format or constraints.
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 physics interfaces in a model, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like physics_list_features (which lists features of a physics interface) and physics_add (which adds a new 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. The description does not mention contexts where listing interfaces is appropriate or mention any prerequisites (e.g., model must exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.