FlexSim MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

flexsim_agv_connect

Connect two FlexSim AGV path segments or a ControlPoint to a path via objectconnect, verifying the linked route with BFS. Use it to join segments created by AGV loop tools that remain unlinked.

Instructions

Connect two AGV segments with objectconnect (window backend only).

Une dos tramos AGV (StraightPath/CurvedPath) o un ControlPoint a un path
con objectconnect (el mismo comando verificado para cintas en
flexsim_add_conveyor_leg; si FlexSim crea objetos intermedios, la
verificacion lo reporta via el path completo).

Vecina: flexsim_add_agv_loop crea ControlPoints + un StraightPath piloto
sin conectar; esta tool cierra ese gap conectando dos tramos ya creados.
NO crea Dispatcher/TE ni tasksequences.

Args:
    path_from: tramo AGV origen (o ControlPoint origen).
    path_to: tramo AGV destino.
    verify: caminar outObjects con BFS (_flow_path) buscando path_to.

Returns JSON {from, to, linked, path | last_out, note}.
Limit: red AGV completa/tasksequences no verificadas.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

It discloses important behavioral context: 'window backend only', the objectconnect mechanism, the fact that intermediate objects created by FlexSim are reported via the full path, and the verification behavior. It also states limits ('red AGV completa/tasksequences no verificadas'). With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden, and while it adds meaningful behavioral details, it does not cover permissions, error conditions, or what happens if the connection fails.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but it mixes English and Spanish, repeats concepts, and includes parenthetical commentary that interrupts flow. Several sentences are dense and could be tightened without losing meaning. It is adequately sized but not maximally efficient.

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?

Given a single-parameter input object (wrapped as params) and an existing output schema, the description need not reiterate return values, yet it still summarizes the JSON return shape. It covers backend constraints, neighbor relationships, and limitations. It misses error-handling behavior and any explicit statement about prerequisite state, so it is not fully complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain path_from, path_to, and verify ('caminar outObjects con BFS buscando path_to'), which adds real meaning beyond bare names. However, it does not fully specify value formats, valid object types, or the meaning of the output fields relative to each parameter, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 states a specific verb ('Connect') and resource ('two AGV segments'), and explicitly names its siblings/neighbors ('flexsim_add_agv_loop creates ControlPoints + a pilot StraightPath unconnected; this tool closes that gap'). It is much more specific than a generic 'connect objects' tool. However, the bilingual structure and parenthetical qualifiers dilute immediate clarity, keeping it from a 5.

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?

It clearly positions itself relative to flexsim_add_agv_loop as the step that closes the gap between unconnected segments, and it explicitly excludes Dispatcher/TE and tasksequence creation. However, it does not say when NOT to use this tool versus flexsim_connect_objects or flexsim_agv_link_path, which are close siblings.

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

Deploy Server