Skip to main content
Glama
FokkeZB

MCP Simulator

by FokkeZB
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

execute_action

Run discovered actions on connected systems by their exact name. After searching, invoke actions with required parameters to get results.

Instructions

STEP 2: Execute a discovered action on the connected system by its exact name. This is the ONLY way to actually run actions - actions are NOT tools themselves!

⚠️ CRITICAL: Actions discovered via search_actions are NOT tools. You cannot call them directly. You MUST use THIS tool (execute_action) to invoke them on their respective systems.

REQUIRED WORKFLOW:

  1. First call search_actions to discover available action names

  2. Then call execute_action with the exact "name" from search results

  3. Repeat execute_action for each action you need to run

The action_name parameter MUST exactly match the "name" field from search_actions output.

EXAMPLE - CORRECT: search_actions(query="weather") → returns action: "get_weather_for_location" execute_action(action_name="get_weather_for_location", parameters={"location": "NYC"}) → returns weather data

EXAMPLE - WRONG (will fail): search_actions(query="weather") → returns action: "get_weather_for_location" get_weather_for_location(location="NYC") ← ERROR! This is not a tool!

Remember: You have these MCP tools: search_actions, execute_action, get_world_time, advance_world_time. Action names are NOT tools.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
parametersNoParameters for the action. Check the action's "parameters" and "required" fields from search results.
action_nameYesThe EXACT action name from search_actions results. Must be a perfect character-for-character match with the "name" field to route to the correct system.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses critical behavior: actions are not direct tools, exact name matching is required for routing, and this tool is the sole invocation mechanism. It gives a concrete example but does not discuss potential side effects, authentication, or error behavior.

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?

The description is verbose and has some redundancy—'actions are NOT tools' is repeated and the Remember line restates sibling tools—but the critical, confusing nature of actions versus tools justifies the repetition. It is well-structured with a workflow, correct example, and wrong example, making the length acceptable.

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 generic executor of dynamically discovered actions, the description is complete: it covers the prerequisite search step, exact name matching, parameter sourcing, and the boundary between tools and actions. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by a concrete example showing expected usage, so an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by emphasizing character-for-character exact matching for action_name and instructing the agent to populate parameters using the action's own 'parameters' and 'required' fields from search results. The concrete example reinforces this.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a discovered action on the connected system by its exact name.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing that this is the ONLY way to run actions and that actions are not tools themselves.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description lays out a required workflow: call search_actions first, then execute_action with the exact name, and repeat as needed. It provides a correct example, a wrong example that would fail, and explicitly warns against calling action names as tools, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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