Skip to main content
Glama
FelipeDiazAimar

FlexSim MCP Server

by FelipeDiazAimar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

flexsim_add_agv_loop

Create a pilot AGV loop in FlexSim by placing N control points in a rectangle and adding a straight path between the first two points.

Instructions

Create a pilot AGV loop: N ControlPoints in rectangle + one StraightPath (window backend only).

Crea n_points AGV::ControlPoint (<prefix>CP1..N) en rectangulo de lado spacing
desde (x, y, z) + UN AGV::StraightPath piloto del punto 1 al 2. Cada creacion
se verifica con return o.name. La conexion fisica entre paths es incierta:
el StraightPath se crea sin conectar (si StraightPath requiriese 2 endpoints
como args de creacion, queda documentado como limite en el resultado).
NO crea Dispatcher/TE.

Args:
    name_prefix: prefix for ControlPoint names (default AGV -> AGVCP1..N).
    n_points: 2-10 control points (default 4).
    spacing: rectangle side in meters (default 8).
    x, y, z: origin corner of the rectangle.
    overwrite: destroy previous <prefix>CPi / <prefix>Path12 first when they
        already exist (default False: reject without writing anything).

Siguiente paso (red AGV, marcador # AGV-red): flexsim_agv_link_path une dos
extremos (path-path o ControlPoint-path) con objectconnect verificado por
_flow_path; flexsim_agv_route despacha una sola TS con un TRAVEL por stop.
Guia completa de la red en el docstring de flexsim_agv_route.

Returns JSON {control_points, paths, limit, note} (+ errors / error).
Limit: red completa y tasksequences AGV aun no verificadas.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the window-backend restriction, that the StraightPath is created unconnected, the physical-connection uncertainty, the overwrite-destroys-previous behavior, and verification via return o.name. Only remaining gap is any permission/rate context, which is minor here.

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 English opener is well front-loaded, but the full Spanish restatement duplicates the same content, roughly doubling length without adding information. Appropriately sized for a complex tool, but the bilingual redundancy is waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, yet the description still names the JSON keys and states the verification limit. Combined with the disclosed constraints and next-step guidance, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents name_prefix, n_points (2-10), spacing in meters, x/y/z as origin corner, and overwrite's destructive semantics with its default. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema defaults and ranges.

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: creates N ControlPoints in a rectangle plus one StraightPath, scoped as 'window backend only'. That is concrete and separable from siblings, though the sibling differentiation comes via the 'Siguiente paso' section rather than the opening line.

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?

Names the follow-on tools (flexsim_agv_link_path, flexsim_agv_route) and clarifies what this tool does not do ('NO crea Dispatcher/TE'), giving clear workflow context. It lacks an explicit negative condition, but the sequencing and scope are adequately conveyed.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools