FlexSim MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

flexsim_create_objects

Batch create FlexSim objects with unique names, positions, and properties. Verifies each object and enforces count limits for window backend models.

Instructions

Create objects in the FlexSim window in batch (window backend only).

Wraps Object.create + name + setLocation + setProperty with per-object verification.
Names must be unique (FlexSim allows duplicates, this tool refuses them unless
overwrite=True, in which case the old object is destroyed first).

Student (100 objetos, docs oficiales FlexSim): antes de crear lee # CNT-limite
_model_object_count(); si actual+len(batch)>100 devuelve error SIN crear nada # CNT-limite
(atómico); si actual+len>=85 procede pero antepone warning al resultado. Solo ventana. # CNT-limite

Args:
    objects: [{cls, name, x, y, z, properties}]. Class e.g. Source, Queue,
        Processor, Sink, Operator, Rack, Conveyor::StraightConveyor.
    overwrite: destroy Model.find(name) first when it already exists.

Example:
    objects=[{cls: Source, name: Source1, x: 0}, {cls: Queue, name: Queue1, x: 6}]

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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well: atomic failure ('devuelve error SIN crear nada'), a soft warning threshold at 85, a hard cap at 100, per-object verification, and the fact that overwrite destroys the existing object first. It omits permission/auth requirements and return-format details, and the garbled '# CNT-limite' scaffolding hurts legibility, keeping it from a 5.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded, but the middle Spanish block is duplicated ('Solo ventana' repeats the window-backend constraint) and littered with '# CNT-limite' template markers, making the rules harder to parse than they need to be.

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 values need no explanation, and for a batch mutation tool with zero annotations the description still covers atomicity, thresholds, uniqueness, and destructive overwrite. The unresolved 50-vs-100 item discrepancy and absent permission notes are the remaining gaps.

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?

Despite 0% reported schema description coverage at the top level, the description explains the parameter shape directly: the objects list fields (cls, name, x, y, z, properties), concrete class examples, and the semantics of overwrite. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema, though it never reconciles the described 100-object cap with the schema's maxItems: 50.

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+resource ('Create objects in the FlexSim window in batch') and scopes it to the window backend, which separates it from other creation tools. It never names a sibling tool to route against (e.g. flexsim_create_any or flexsim_person_create), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives real usage conditions: window backend only, use overwrite=True when the name already exists, and the object-count thresholds that govern whether creation proceeds. However it offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives among the many create_* siblings, so the agent must still infer when this tool is preferred.

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

Deploy Server