Skip to main content
Glama
FelipeDiazAimar

FlexSim MCP Server

by FelipeDiazAimar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

flexsim_evaluate_node

Evaluate an existing FlexSim model node by tree path and return its value, with optional arguments for the node's code.

Instructions

Evaluate an EXISTING node by tree path and return its value.

This does not run arbitrary FlexScript (use flexsim_execute_script for that). An
unknown path returns None without an error.

Args:
    node_path: e.g. "MAIN:/project/exec/time"
    args: Optional parameters passed to the node's code

Example:
    node_path="MAIN:/project/exec/time"

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

A4.3/5.0
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 does well: it discloses that only existing nodes are evaluated, that unknown paths return None without raising an error, and that arbitrary script execution is out of scope. It omits any note on side effects of node code or permissions, keeping it short of 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded purpose, then a scope exclusion, then args, then an example. Slightly redundant that the example path repeats the one already shown inline in the Args section, but overall tight and well-structured.

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 not be explained, and the description covers the key behaviors an agent needs (existing-node evaluation, None on unknown path, script alternative). It could be richer about what kinds of node values are returned, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It supplies a concrete path format for node_path and explains args as 'Optional parameters passed to the node's code', which the schema's bare 'array' type does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Evaluate an EXISTING node by tree path') and its return ('return its value'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from flexsim_execute_script, so an agent can separate it from the most confusable sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly names the alternative ('This does not run arbitrary FlexScript - use flexsim_execute_script for that'), giving a usable when/when-not boundary. It does not, however, contrast with flexsim_get_node_value, the other obvious sibling for reading node state.

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