FlexSim MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

flexsim_table_write

Write a rectangular block of values into a GlobalTable, creating it if missing. Optionally resize the table to match the block or enlarge it to fit.

Instructions

Write a rectangular block of values into a GlobalTable, creating it when needed.

Writes rows (list of lists, 1-100 rows x 1-20 cols, rectangular) into
Table("<table>") cells [1..R][1..C] with quoted literals. With clear=True
(default) the table is resized to exactly R x C first; with clear=False it is
only enlarged and the block lands at the top-left. Returns JSON
{table, rows, cols, table_rows, table_cols, created, cleared, backend}.

Creation (create_if_missing=True, default) tries, in order: Tools.create("GlobalTable")
(Toolbox factory: the only path verified end-to-end — create, setSize, cell R/W),
applicationcommand("addglobaltable"), and cloning the first existing table. It works
even when Tools/GlobalTables is empty or missing. Object.create("GlobalTable") is
never used: its nodes fail with `Invalid row number` (AGENTE_FLEXSIM.md sec 3c).

Args:
    table: GlobalTable name (Tools/GlobalTables/<table>).
    rows: rectangular values (numbers/strings/bool/null; null stored as 0).
    create_if_missing: clone a donor table when missing (default True).
    clear: resize to exactly the block size first (default True).

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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and does so richly: it discloses that clear=True resizes/destroys existing content, that null is coerced to 0, the exact creation fallback sequence, and even a known-failing API path ('Invalid row number'). This is far more behavioral detail than a bare mutation tool would normally provide.

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 purpose and Args are front-loaded and clean, but the middle paragraph drifts into internal implementation rationale (applicationcommand ordering, Object.create failure, AGENTE_FLEXSIM.md section reference) that is largely non-actionable for an agent and inflates length.

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?

For a no-annotation mutation tool it covers everything needed: purpose, exact dimension limits, coercion rules, resize/create behavior, and the return payload fields (even though an output schema exists). An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the explicit Args block documents all four parameters, including non-obvious semantics the schema cannot express (rows accept numbers/strings/bool/null, null stored as 0; create_if_missing clones a donor table; clear resizes vs enlarges). It fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 sentence gives a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Write a rectangular block of values into a GlobalTable, creating it when needed.' It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling flexsim_table_read, and the dimension bounds (1-100 rows x 1-20 cols) sharpen the scope further.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the operational meaning of the clear and create_if_missing flags (resize vs enlarge, clone-for-create), which implies usage, but it never states when to choose this tool over read/script siblings like flexsim_table_read or flexsim_execute_script, and gives no explicit exclusions.

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

Deploy Server