Cloud World Model

List Scenarios

scenario.list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the built-in demo scenarios as compact catalog cards — stable IDs, title/name, description, difficulty, tags, category, duration, provider summary, and resource/connection counts. Use it as the first call when you want a ready-made architecture instead of designing one; the cards intentionally omit resource, connection, traffic-pattern, and failure-injection graphs. Anonymous discovery includes only scenarios with at most 10 resources so every listed card is demo-creatable. No prerequisites. Optionally narrow discovery with provider, category, and/or difficulty filters; omit them to receive the complete demo-creatable catalog. Pass a returned id as scenarioId to simulation.create for server-side expansion, or pass it to scenario.get when you need to inspect the full graph. Larger scenarios require an authenticated session. The likely next tool is scenario.get.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`category`	No	Only scenarios in this category, such as scaling, failure, reliability, networking, or cost
`provider`	No	Only scenarios that include resources from this cloud provider
`difficulty`	No	Only scenarios at this difficulty level

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scenarios`	Yes	Available demo scenarios

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: the catalog-card form, intentional omission of graph details, the 10-resource limit for anonymous discovery, the authenticated-session requirement for larger scenarios, and the explicit 'No prerequisites' note.

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: core action, response contents, usage context, anonymous limitations, filter behavior, and follow-up tools. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or tautology.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a list tool with a full output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential operational facets: card content, anonymous vs authenticated behavior, optional filters, resource cap, and next tools. The only minor gap is that it doesn't spell out the exact error/omission behavior when an unauthenticated caller might target a larger scenario, though this is implied by the anonymous-discovery cap.

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?

All three parameters are already fully documented in the schema with descriptions and two enums, so the baseline is adequate. The description adds the key semantic of optionality—'omit them to receive the complete demo-creatable catalog'—and names the three filters, reinforcing their role without duplicating schema details.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('built-in demo scenarios') and enumerates the response fields (IDs, title, description, difficulty, tags, category, duration, provider summary, resource/connection counts). It explicitly contrasts with scenario.get (full graph) and simulation.create (server-side expansion), making sibling differentiation clear.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use it as the first call when you want a ready-made architecture instead of designing one' and provides routing to siblings: pass a returned id to simulation.create or scenario.get when the full graph is needed. It also names the likely next tool, scenario.get, which gives the agent a clear decision path.

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?