CST-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

cst_configure_fd_solver_tool

Configure the frequency domain solver by setting mesh method, sweep type, element order, accuracy, and mesh adaption for CST simulations.

Instructions

Configure the frequency domain solver: mesh method, sweep type, element order, accuracy, adaption.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cst_configure_fd_solver_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mesh`	No	Tetrahedral
`order`	No	Second
`sweep`	No	General Purpose
`accuracy`	No	1e-4
`max_cpus`	No
`mesh_adaption`	No
`double_precision`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether existing solver settings are overwritten, whether defaults are applied when arguments are omitted, what permissions/state are required, or what happens on invalid values — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, listing the configurable surface up front. It is a sentence fragment rather than prose, but it wastes no words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description omits two parameters, prerequisites, overwrite behavior, and the distinction from sibling solver-configuration tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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. It names 5 of the 7 parameters conceptually (mesh, sweep, order, accuracy, adaption) but omits max_cpus and double_precision entirely, and gives no valid-value semantics or format detail for the ones it does name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (configure) and resource (frequency domain solver), and enumerates the settings it touches. The 'frequency domain' qualifier implicitly separates it from cst_configure_td_solver_tool and cst_configure_eigenmode_solver_tool, though it never names them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to call this versus cst_set_solver_tool, cst_configure_td_solver_tool, or cst_run_solver_tool, and no prerequisites (e.g. project must be open, frequency range already set). Usage is only implied by the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server