Skip to main content
Glama
Plant Simulation Research Bridge

Plant Simulation Research Bridge

model_create_device

Create a device in a Plant Simulation model using an allowed measured class and return its path, so experiments can add valid modeled components reproducibly.

Instructions

Create a device from the measured class allow-list and return its path.

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": {
      "class_name": "<class_name>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "model_create_device"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNo
yNo
nameYes
work_dirNo
class_nameYes
frame_pathNo
model_rootNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation operation. It states that a device is created and a path is returned, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, idempotency, error behavior for disallowed classes, or what happens to existing state.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short, though the phrase 'measured class allow-list' could be clearer without adding much length.

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?

This is a seven-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to do more work. It covers the basic action and return value but leaves most parameters and mutation behavior unexplained, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

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 seven parameters. The phrase 'measured class allow-list' gives partial meaning to class_name, but x, y, name, work_dir, frame_path, and model_root are left unexplained. The description does not compensate for the schema's complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a device'. It also indicates the source constraint ('measured class allow-list') and that the result includes a path. The domain term 'measured class allow-list' is somewhat opaque, but the core operation is clear and distinguishable from the delete-device sibling.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or when creation should be avoided. The create operation is implied by the name and description, but no usage context is added.

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