Skip to main content
Glama

sim_scenario

Destructive

Run a seeded what-if scenario against a stored model: marking overrides, rate overrides, piecewise rate schedules, and params assignments to the model's declared structural parameters (arc weights, capacities — batch sizes and shelf sizes). Pure read — asking cannot change the model. Returns trajectory, final marking, metrics, contention, caveats and assumptions. "samples" (default 60) is the trajectory's resolution: the number of evenly spaced points from 0 to hours inclusive at which times and every place's series (mean and std_dev per point) are reported — it sizes the answer, not the run, since metrics (throughput, mean, p95, utilization, inFlight) are time-weighted over every firing and do not change with the grid. "summary": true omits the times and series arrays entirely (the keys are absent, not null) and returns just final, metrics, depleted, contended, caveats and assumptions — the verdict without the chart data, and the right form when nothing will be plotted. Transitions declaring stages (phase-type durations) run with the declared lower spread — the engine expands them structurally and reports in the model's own vocabulary. A model-declared schedule (the day shape on a transition) is honored by every run; the scenario's own schedule or rate override still wins for that transition. "engine" picks the reading: "ssa" (default, discrete Gillespie — the right choice whenever counts are small enough that variance is the answer, or a schedule is in play) or "ode" (continuous mass-action; refuses a schedule, and refuses outright rather than silently misread a model carrying a read arc, inhibitor, reached capacity, guard or non-kinetic arc — Forecast's caveats name which). See docs/engine-selection.md for the full decision rule, including why an arc weight above 1 gets a genuinely different rate law from each engine, and sim_crosscheck to run both readings side by side.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesmodel id
scenarioNoscenario JSON, e.g. {"hours":8,"samples":60,"realizations":16,"seed":7,"marking":{"staff":3},"params":{"batch_size":6},"schedule":{"arrive":[{"until":2,"value":12},{"until":8,"value":4}]},"engine":"ssa","summary":false}; hours defaults to 8, samples to 60, realizations to 16, summary to false (full trajectory)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, while the description opens with 'Pure read — asking cannot change the model.' This is a direct contradiction and forces a 1 regardless of the rich behavioral detail elsewhere about engine refusal, schedule precedence, and summary key omission. An agent cannot safely trust whether invoking this tool is side-effect free.

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 core action and returns, then organized into parameter and engine semantics. It is long but most sentences earn their place; a few phrases, like 'Forecast's caveats name which,' are slightly unclear and the engine-selection paragraph is dense.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and does so: trajectory, final marking, metrics, contention, caveats, assumptions, and the summary variant. However, it leaves some scenario keys like 'realizations' unexplained and defers part of engine selection to an external doc, which is a minor gap for such a complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers id and scenario, with a full example JSON, so baseline is 3. The description goes well beyond this by explaining the semantics of 'samples' (sizes the answer, not the run), 'summary' (keys absent, not null), 'engine' choices, and how schedule/rate overrides interact with model-declared schedules. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 sentence names a specific action and resource: 'Run a seeded what-if scenario against a stored model,' and enumerates the kinds of overrides it applies. It is clearly distinguishable from the many sibling sim_* tools, and it even names sim_crosscheck as the alternative for running both engine readings side by side.

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?

The description gives explicit routing guidance: when to use 'ssa' vs 'ode', refusal cases for 'ode', and when to use 'summary': true when nothing will be plotted. It also points to docs/engine-selection.md for the full decision rule and suggests sim_crosscheck for side-by-side comparison, so when-to-use is fully specified.

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