Plant Simulation Research Bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

model_connect_objects

Connects a source object to a target object with a MaterialFlow connector in a Plant Simulation model, enabling flow between stations for simulation experiments.

Instructions

Connect a source to a target with a MaterialFlow connector.

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": {
      "source": "<source>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "model_connect_objects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes
`target`	Yes
`work_dir`	No
`frame_path`	No
`model_root`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: not whether the connection is persistent, what happens if source and target are already connected, whether it mutates model state, or what errors can arise. Only the implicit mutation is conveyed by the word "Connect".

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded, free of filler, and easy to scan. It is concise to the point of under-specification, so brevity is not fully earning its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, one sentence is inadequate. An agent knows the core action but not the meaning of three of its inputs or the tool's side effects.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, and the description only echoes the two required names (source, target). The purpose of work_dir, frame_path, and model_root is left entirely unexplained, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a concrete verb ("Connect") and the two endpoints ("source", "target") plus the connector type ("MaterialFlow"). However, "connect" is domain-specific and the definition never distinguishes this from siblings like method_set_source or simulation_set_source, so an agent cannot tell which to pick without guessing.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as method_set_source, simulation_set_source, or object_set_control that appear to touch similar wiring. Usage must be inferred entirely from the single sentence.

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