Plant Simulation Research Bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

model_list_objects

List objects in a Plant Simulation frame with each object’s name and real class path, enabling quick inspection of model structure before experiment setup or simulation.

Instructions

List the objects in a frame (name and real class path per object).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "model_list_objects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`work_dir`	No
`frame_path`	No
`model_root`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one useful detail beyond the name — that output is name and real class path per object — but says nothing about whether this requires an open model or live connection, what happens for an invalid frame_path, or whether it is read-only and 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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the return shape appended in parentheses. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical is terse enough to be slightly cryptic.

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?

With three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should do more. Disclosing the returned fields is a genuine contribution, but the missing prerequisite and path-composition information leaves an agent likely to misconfigure the call.

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 three parameters. The description only hints at frame_path via 'in a frame'; work_dir and model_root are completely unexplained in both schema and description, and the relationship between model_root, work_dir and frame_path is left for the agent to guess.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the objects in a frame', and the parenthetical clarifies that each row is a name plus real class path. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as model_object_info, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 when-to-use guidance at all — no statement of prerequisites (must the model be opened or connected first?), no mention of when to prefer model_object_info or model_get_property over this list, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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