Step through FlexSim simulation events via the bridge, advancing 1 to 1000 events per call to inspect or debug model behavior.
Step through simulation events (needs the bridge).
Args:
steps: Number of events to step (1-1000, default: 1)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions a bridge dependency but says nothing about whether stepping pauses the simulation, whether a model must be loaded first, what happens at the end of the event queue, or any authorization/connection requirements beyond the terse parenthetical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very short and front-loaded: the purpose leads and the argument note follows. Slightly terse, but every sentence earns its place with no padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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, but for a state-mutating simulation control tool with zero annotations and no sibling routing, the definition leaves the agent guessing about prerequisites, post-conditions, and when stepping is preferable to running.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 define the sole parameter as a count of events with a valid range and default, which adds meaning beyond the bare integer schema, but it gives no units-level intuition (e.g., how long 1000 events takes) or edge behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource: stepping through simulation events. An agent can distinguish it from flexsim_run or flexsim_run_to_time conceptually, though it never explicitly names those alternatives as the thing it is not.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use stepping versus run, run_to_time, or stop. The only context offered is the precondition 'needs the bridge', which is a dependency note rather than usage selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.