FlexSim MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

flexsim_chart_inspect

Inspects a FlexSim chart's internal tree structure read-only in window or Python backend, listing variables, subnodes, and data nodes to reveal data sources before binding.

Instructions

Inspect a chart's internal tree structure, read-only (window or Python backend).

Solo lectura (dual via run_script, como flexsim_dashboard_list): vuelca la
estructura interna del chart con primitivas verificadas (ver bloque P3):
subnodos directos (nombre+clase, 1 nivel), variables (hijos de `>variables`
como nombre=value via treenode.value, hasta 30) y, por cada subnodo cuyo
nombre contenga data|serie|dataset, sus hijos.

Vecinas: flexsim_dashboard_create crea el chart; flexsim_dashboard_list lo
localiza; esta tool descubre de donde lee antes de bindear (ver
flexsim_chart_bind_stat).

Args:
    name: nombre del chart (Model.find debe resolverlo).

Returns JSON {name, kind, variables, subnodes, data_nodes, note}. Si el
chart no existe devuelve error claro (sin JSON). No escribe nada.
Limite: la semantica de cada subnodo (que serie alimenta) solo se conoce
viendo el modelo real; lo no verificable queda como limite, no se inventa.

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it declares read-only behavior, says 'No escribe nada', describes dual backends (window or Python), details the return JSON shape, specifies error behavior for missing charts, and openly states a limitation about unverifiable subnode semantics.

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 structured with sections for siblings, args, returns, and limits, and the purpose is front-loaded. However, it has clear waste: read-only is stated three times ('read-only', 'Solo lectura', 'No escribe nada'), and the mixed English/Spanish phrasing adds length without added precision.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, absent annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition covers the necessary ground: what it inspects, when to use it, argument meaning, return structure, error behavior, and known limits. An output schema exists, but the description still adds useful completeness without being redundant.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining the sole parameter: 'name: nombre del chart (Model.find debe resolverlo).' It adds meaning and a resolution constraint beyond the schema's type/pattern fields, though it does not repeat the pattern/length constraints.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The first line states a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect a chart's internal tree structure, read-only.' It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming flexsim_dashboard_create, flexsim_dashboard_list, and flexsim_chart_bind_stat, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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?

The 'Vecinas' section explicitly names alternatives and gives the condition for using this tool: 'descubre de donde lee antes de bindear (ver flexsim_chart_bind_stat).' It provides clear context but does not state explicit when-not-to-use exclusions.

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

Deploy Server