FlexSim MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

flexsim_pf_attach

Move a model-level activity inside its ProcessFlow container to attach it to the flow and verify the parent path; window backend only.

Instructions

Move a model-level activity INSIDE its ProcessFlow (window backend only).

Vecinas leidas antes de escribir (sin duplicar nombres de inputs):
flexsim_pf_add_activity (crea a nivel modelo, attached:false),
flexsim_pf_connect (resuelve flow/actividad + token line "A") y
flexsim_processflow_inventory (solo lectura: clase + in/out counts).

Metodo (solo ventana): moveobject(object, containerobject) de la
referencia FlexSim BasicModelingFunctions ("moves the object out of its
current container into its new container") para mover la actividad
creada por pf_add_activity dentro del flow. Verifica con el parent:
Model.find("flow/activity") != NULL tras mover.

Args:
    flow: ProcessFlow contenedor (debe existir via Model.find).
    activity: actividad a mover (nombre corto, creada a nivel modelo).

Returns JSON {activity, flow, attached, parent_path} (+ error real
cuando attached=false, sin mentir).
Limite: la semantica token de ProcessFlow no esta verificada end-to-end.

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the underlying operation (moveobject), a post-condition verification (Model.find('flow/activity') != NULL), the return keys, error behavior when attached=false ('sin mentir'), and an honest limitation about unverified token semantics. It omits any permission/auth requirements or side effects on existing connections.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sections (neighbors, method, args, returns, limit) are organized, but the text is verbose and mixes Spanish and English, including meta-commentary about which tools were 'read before writing' and a manual quote. Some of this is redundant overhead that dilutes an otherwise serviceable structure.

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?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation, prerequisite workflow, return shape, and an explicit limitation. The output schema makes explaining return values optional (it explains them anyway), and the only real gap is the absence of failure/permission guidance.

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 and largely does: 'flow' is defined as the ProcessFlow container that must exist via Model.find, and 'activity' as a short-name activity created at model level. The pattern/length constraints live only in the schema, but the semantic meaning of each parameter is added.

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 opening line gives a precise verb+resource+destination ('Move a model-level activity INSIDE its ProcessFlow') and scopes it ('window backend only'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming flexsim_pf_add_activity as the tool that creates at model level with attached:false, so an agent can route correctly 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?

It names the prerequisite/related tools to consult first (pf_add_activity, pf_connect, processflow_inventory) and the implicit workflow of create-at-model-level then attach, plus the 'window backend only' constraint. It stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions or what to do if the activity is already attached.

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

Deploy Server