Skip to main content
Glama

sim_prompt

Destructive

Ask an LLM to derive something from a stored entity: a variant model, a report, a piece of generated code — whatever the prompt asks for. The parent's JSON rides along as context, the same way the guided builder gives its interviewer the draft. The parent is looked up as a model first, then a prompt, then an artifact, then a map — whichever resolves — and the context block is labelled by what kind it found ("## Parent model", "## Parent prompt", ...), so the LLM is never told a report is a Petri net. The prompt is stored first and content-addressed like a model, so it has an id of its own before the LLM ever answers; both the prompt and whatever came back are placed in lineage under the parent (sim_prompt as the activity), so Ancestry walks parent -> prompt -> result. A Relation{prompt, "produced", result} is recorded alongside — sim_reroll's forward index, and queryable directly via sim_edges/sim_neighbors. If the response parses and validates as a Petri-net model it is stored as a NEW model you own; otherwise the raw text is stored as an artifact. Refused if this deployment has no LLM provider configured.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesthe natural-language instruction
parentYesid to run the prompt against — a model, prompt, artifact, or map
systemNooptional system-level instructions, in addition to the parent context this tool always supplies

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description is exceptionally transparent. It discloses parent lookup order, context labelling, content-addressed prompt storage, lineage placement, the Relation{prompt, 'produced', result}, conditional storage as model vs artifact, and refusal without a provider. These details go far 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 first sentence front-loads the purpose, and every subsequent sentence adds a distinct, non-redundant behavioral fact. The paragraph is long because the behavior is genuinely complex, but the density is justified.

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?

The description covers input handling, processing, storage, lineage, relation creation, and the no-provider failure mode. The only notable gap is that it does not state the caller-facing return payload, though stored side effects are emphasized thoroughly.

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 covers all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning to 'parent' by specifying the resolution order and to 'text' as the natural-language derivation request, moving it above baseline.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Ask an LLM to derive something from a stored entity,' and names the entity kinds. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast the tool with sibling tools such as sim_reroll or sim_classify.

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 intended context is clear: run a prompt against a stored model, prompt, artifact, or map, with the parent's JSON supplied as context. It also notes a refusal condition when no LLM provider is configured. However, it does not state when to use this tool over alternatives or list exclusions.

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