Skip to main content
Glama
SethGame

FlexSim MCP Server

by SethGame

flexsim_compile

Check FlexScript code for errors in FlexSim simulation models to ensure reliable model execution and analysis.

Instructions

Compile the model (check for FlexScript errors).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The flexsim_compile tool handler that checks the FlexSim model for script errors by calling compilemodel() through FlexScript evaluation
    async def flexsim_compile() -> str:
        """Compile the model (check for FlexScript errors)."""
        try:
            controller = await get_controller()
            result = controller.evaluate("compilemodel()")
            return f"✓ Compilation complete: {result}"
        except Exception as e:
            return format_error(e)
  • MCP tool registration decorator that registers flexsim_compile as an available tool in the FastMCP server
    @mcp.tool()
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool compiles and checks for errors, implying a read-only validation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies the model, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides detailed error output. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Compile the model') and adds clarifying detail ('check for FlexScript errors') without waste. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It explains the purpose but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error reporting format or when to use it. With an output schema, it needn't explain return values, but for a validation tool with no annotations, more context on outcomes would be helpful.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to explain. Baseline 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Compile') and resource ('the model'), specifying it checks for FlexScript errors. It distinguishes from siblings like 'flexsim_run' or 'flexsim_step' by focusing on compilation/validation rather than execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'flexsim_evaluate' might also involve checking).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after editing code), exclusions (e.g., not needed before running), or comparisons to siblings like 'flexsim_evaluate' for error checking. The description implies usage for validation but lacks explicit context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SethGame/mcp_flexsim'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server