Skip to main content
Glama

sim_generate

Destructive

Write a Petri-net model from a plain-language description with the configured LLM, with the levers that moved the pass rate in the benchmark behind it, each optional. The model is checked as it arrives (decode, validator, then the builder's behavioural checks: disconnected parts, transitions that never fire, places nothing fills, and any place_ids you named); what is wrong is shown back to it and it answers again, up to retries times. A net that decodes and passes the validator is stored as a NEW model you own, exactly as sim_code_to_flow stores one, even when behavioural problems remain; clean says whether any do and problems lists them. notes lists what is right for some nets and wrong for others, and is never fed back: a state where nothing can fire, a place that grows without limit. A net that cannot be stored is returned as model with the reasons. Levers: retries (0-4, default 2) re-asks with the findings and is the strongest; best_of (1-5, default 1) starts again from scratch when a sample ends with problems and stops at the first clean one; selfcheck asks the model to play its own net forward and replays that against the net (it catches inconsistency, not a wrong idea); example is "real" (default, a worked order workflow) or "placeholder" (the older schema with placeholder names, which small models copy literally); model picks one of the deployment's allowed models; thinking caps the model's hidden reasoning tokens (0 turns it off); temperature is 0-1. Cost: every model request is one call and one request makes at most 6 (best_of x (1 + retries), plus one for selfcheck); a request over that is refused before it runs. The calls it really makes are counted against your daily LLM allowance, the same one the builder uses, and the response reports calls, tokens (thinking tokens included) and the allowance left. Needs sign-in; refused when this deployment has no LLM provider configured.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoname for the model; filled in when the LLM leaves it out
modelNoone of the models this deployment allows; omit for its default (the error for an unknown name lists them)
best_ofNoindependent samples, tried until one is clean, 1-5 (default 1)
exampleNo"real" (default) or "placeholder"
retriesNofeedback rounds after an answer with problems, 0-4 (default 2)
thinkingNocap on hidden reasoning tokens, 0-24576; 0 turns thinking off; omit for the model default
place_idsNoplace ids the net must contain; a missing one is fed back like any other problem
selfcheckNoone extra call: the model plays its net forward and the server replays it (default false)
temperatureNo0-1; omit for 0.2
requirementsYeswhat the model should represent, in plain language: the process, its resources and their sizes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only flag it as non-read-only/destructive; the description goes far beyond by disclosing the validation pipeline (decode, validator, behavioural checks), that a net surviving the validator is stored as a NEW model even with behavioural problems left, how failures are returned in `model`, and that `notes` is never fed back. It also quantifies cost (at most 6 requests per call, formula given), refusal conditions, and that calls count against the builder's daily LLM allowance.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose and storage behaviour are front-loaded, but the body is a single dense wall of text mixing validation, storage, failure semantics, lever definitions, and cost accounting. The information is mostly load-bearing, yet the lack of paragraph or list structure makes it harder to scan than the content warrants.

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?

For a 10-parameter, LLM-backed generation tool with no output schema and destructive/create semantics, the description covers everything an agent needs: prerequisites, storage and ownership outcome, failure return shape, cost ceiling and allowance impact, and the meaning of every lever. Nothing material 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so 3 is the baseline, but the description adds real meaning: retries described as 'the strongest' lever, best_of's stop-at-first-clean behaviour, selfcheck's limitation ('catches inconsistency, not a wrong idea'), and the real vs placeholder example distinction. Minor gap: thinking and temperature get only terse treatment, but this still exceeds the schema text.

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 first clause states a specific verb and resource: write a Petri-net model from a plain-language description using the configured LLM. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling sim_code_to_flow by contrasting the input (plain language vs code) and clarifying that both produce a new owned model. An agent can select this tool without opening another schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied rather than stated: it is for generating a net from prose requirements, and sim_code_to_flow is mentioned only as a storage analogy, not as an alternative to choose between. Preconditions are given (needs sign-in, refused without an LLM provider), but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing.

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