Cloud World Model

Get Scenario

scenario.get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Hydrate one built-in scenario from the live Cloud World Model scenario library. Prerequisite: a scenario id returned by scenario.list. Returns the complete selected scenario graph, including resources and connections plus optional seed, resilienceConfig, protectedResilienceConfig, traffic/failure presets, and real-world incident metadata. The response includes both title and name for compatibility; pass resources and connections, and optionally seed/resilienceConfig, to simulation.create when you need to edit or inspect the graph. For the shorter handoff, pass the id as scenarioId instead. The likely next tool is simulation.create.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scenarioId`	Yes	Scenario identifier returned by scenario.list

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Stable scenario identifier
`name`	No	Scenario display name; equivalent to title
`seed`	No
`tags`	No
`title`	No	Scenario title
`status`	No	Result status; not_found when the requested scenario does not exist
`message`	No	Error or guidance message
`category`	No
`duration`	No
`resources`	No	Full resource graph; pass to simulation.create
`difficulty`	No
`connections`	No	Full connection graph; pass to simulation.create
`description`	No
`resilienceConfig`	No
`realWorldIncident`	No
`defaultTrafficPatterns`	No
`defaultFailureInjections`	No
`protectedResilienceConfig`	No

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it returns the complete scenario graph including resources, connections, optional seed/resilienceConfig, presets, and incident metadata. It also discloses compatibility behavior ('both title and name') and how to hand off to simulation.create. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: it states the purpose, prerequisite, return contents, compatibility nuance, handoff usage, and next step. It is front-loaded with the core action and structured so an agent can quickly extract the essential call context.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the single parameter, existing annotations, and rich output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs for correct invocation: where the id comes from, what the response contains, how to use the result, and what to do next. There are no critical gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents scenarioId with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by tying the parameter to scenario.list's output and explaining the alternative handoff mode via scenarioId. This is a clear value-add over the schema alone.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb ('Hydrate'), resource ('one built-in scenario'), and source ('live Cloud World Model scenario library'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from scenario.list and simulation.create by describing the handoff. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides an explicit prerequisite (scenario id from scenario.list), explains the next likely step (simulation.create), and gives two usage modes — passing resources/connections for editing, or passing scenarioId for a shorter handoff. This is clear, actionable guidance for when and how to use the tool.

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

All Cloud World Model tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct step in the scenario/simulation workflow: catalog vs. hydrated graph, create vs. delete, traffic vs. failure injection, metrics vs. step, and recovery. The descriptions even call out look-alike pairs (e.g., simulation.metrics vs. simulation.step) to prevent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The noun.action pattern with scenario.* and simulation.* prefixes is clear and consistent, and multi-word actions use snake_case. The only deviation is simulation.metrics, which uses a noun rather than an imperative verb like get_metrics or read_metrics, though it remains predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is a well-scoped size for a demo simulation server: two for scenario discovery, one creation/one deletion, and five for operating/observing a simulation. No tool feels redundant or superfluous.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is covered end to end: discover scenarios, create a simulation, inject load/failures, step, read metrics, recover, and delete. However, the descriptions repeatedly reference a simulation.get tool that is not present in the set; simulation.metrics mostly substitutes, but that documentation gap makes the surface slightly incomplete.

Resources

Need Help?