Skip to main content
Glama

sim_create_model

Destructive

Store a Petri-net model and return its content id and url, plus warnings (omitted when there are none) for a model that stores but probably does not say what was meant: transitions with no rate, which simulations run at the engine default of 1 per hour (each stage of a staged one, in a run without a schedule); a net in which nothing can fire at its declared initial marking; a guard no simulation enforces; an inhibitor arc drawn transition -> place; a pool (staff, machines) one transition takes and gives back in the same firing beside the work it serves, which is never busy, so its headcount multiplies that rate (or, through a "kinetic": false arc, changes nothing) instead of capping work in progress; a pool a transition only reads, through a read arc beside the work it takes, declared above the read arc's weight (staff at 2 read by serve beside queue), which is never taken and stays out of the rate, so every count above the weight runs exactly as the weight does (at the weight, such as an open sign at 1, it is a gate and draws no warning). At most 10 of each per-element warning are listed, the rest counted. The model is JSON with name, places, transitions and arcs; rates are per hour. Read resource sim://docs/authoring once for a worked example and the fields a simulation reads. Refused, with every reason at once: a key the schema does not define, named by its path with the key it most likely meant (unknown field places[0].intial (did you mean "initial"?)) or, when none is close, to be removed, a key repeated across elements written once (arcs[0..6].source); a value of the wrong kind, by its path and the kind wanted (the first one only, and the structure is checked once every value has the right kind); and otherwise every structural defect, leaving out the ones a misspelt key caused. At most 20 of each are listed, the rest counted. Models are immutable; a changed model is a new id. Costs 1 compute token (the account's bucket when signed in, the client address's otherwise); the model JSON is at most 262144 bytes.

Signed in with write scope, the model is yours (mine: true): it appears only in your own listing until you dedicate it to the commons with sim_license_model, and you can remove it with sim_delete_model. An identical model stored before this call keeps the envelope it has, so the reply is then mine: false with a note saying whose it is: another account's, the catalog's, or nobody's (created without sign-in). Without sign-in it is stored unowned, for good (mine: false, and a note saying so): reachable by id, listed for nobody, and nobody can delete, license or supersede it — creating the identical model signed in later returns the same id, still unowned. To own a model, sign in before creating it; a changed model (a new name is enough) is a new id. A call whose token has expired or lacks write scope is asked to sign in, not stored unowned. Anyone you give the id to can use the model either way.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelYesthe model JSON: name, places, transitions, arcs (sim://docs/authoring has the fields and a worked example)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / model / description
      Previous value: -"the model JSON"New value: +"the model JSON: name, places, transitions, arcs (sim://docs/authoring has the fields and a worked example)"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: immutable models (a change yields a new id), cost of 1 compute token and billing source, the 262144-byte cap, the signed-in-write-scope ownership model, the unowned-permanent path, and the expired-token refusal path. Annotation-contradiction is absent.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Front-loading is good — the store/return contract is in the first clause — but the body is one enormous run-on sentence packed with nested parentheticals about warning taxonomies (pools, kinetic arcs, read arcs, guards, inhibitor arcs) that few callers need in order to invoke the tool. It is drastically oversized for a one-parameter tool and hard to parse.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: content id, url, warnings omitted when empty, plus the mine flag and its notes. Refusal behavior, limits, and ownership lifecycle are all covered, so nothing an agent needs to call or interpret the result is missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; however the description goes well beyond the schema by characterizing the model JSON (name, places, transitions, arcs), rate units (per hour), and the authoring-doc reference for a worked example. That is meaningful added meaning for the sole input.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource (store a Petri-net model), the return payload (content id and url), and optional warnings. It is immediately distinguishable from sim_get_model, sim_delete_model, and sim_license_model, all of which are named explicitly later.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not guidance: sign in before creating to own a model, use sim_license_model to dedicate to the commons, sim_delete_model to remove, and the consequence of not signing in (permanently unowned). It also explains what happens on a re-identical model. This is unusually complete routing guidance.

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