Skip to main content
Glama

Save a simulation on an account

save_simulation
Idempotent

Save changes to one account as a simulation that the dashboard can compare against.

Takes the changes ``preview_scenario`` takes, on one account: ``strategy_id`` +
``amount``, or ``changes``. Sales and resizes must be on ``account_id``, and
purchases land in it. The saved holdings are the account's own plus the
changes as of the latest price date, with no optimisation, so they measure
what the preview measured.

Returns the simulation id and the same before/after measurement as
``preview_scenario``. ``open_dashboard`` takes it in
``simulations``, on the account or on any node above it, alongside other
accounts' simulations. It also shows in the web app. A name already on the account is
refused; ``delete_simulation`` removes simulations.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "save_simulation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
amountNo
changesNo
account_idYes
strategy_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety and idempotency, but the description adds meaningful behavior: what holdings are saved, that no optimisation is applied, that names are refused if already used, and what the return contains. It does not cover error states beyond duplicate names or the exact idempotency semantics.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the main action and remains reasonably compact. A few sentences about dashboard placement and web app visibility are useful but slightly extend beyond the core call.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers the return value and saved-state semantics. It is largely complete for calling correctly, though it omits some edge-case validation behavior for conflicting or malformed inputs.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains the strategy_id + amount versus changes split, account_id usage, and name uniqueness, but it leaves gaps such as top-level amount sign/format and what happens if both strategy_id+amount and changes are supplied.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Save changes to one account as a simulation'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like preview_scenario, open_dashboard, delete_simulation, and list_simulations by naming their relationship.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context that this is for persisting the same changes that preview_scenario takes, and it mentions related tools (open_dashboard, delete_simulation). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or spell out a full decision tree versus preview_scenario.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources