plecs_set_cosim_server_enabledEnable or disable the PLECS FMU Co-Simulation endpoint to control whether external FMU co-simulation connections are accepted, applying the setting globally.
Enable/disable the PLECS FMU Co-Simulation endpoint (global PLECS state).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enabled | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the change affects 'global PLECS state', which is useful, but says nothing about reversibility, whether the endpoint must be idle, impact on running simulations, or required permissions for a global mutation.
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?
A single sentence with the verb and the scope qualifier front-loaded. No waste, though it may be slightly under-informative rather than over-long.
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?
For a global state mutation with no annotations, the description should cover at least one caller-relevant behavior (idempotence, connection prerequisites, effect on active sessions). The output schema covers return values, but operational context is thin.
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?
One boolean parameter with 0% schema description coverage. 'Enable/disable' adequately conveys the meaning of the boolean, so the description compensates minimally, but adds no further detail (e.g., default state or effect of toggling while connected). Baseline-appropriate.
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 pair (enable/disable) and the exact resource (PLECS FMU Co-Simulation endpoint), plus scope clarification '(global PLECS state)'. This distinguishes it reasonably from sibling tools like plecs_connect or plecs_webserver, though it doesn't name them explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus related tools (plecs_connect, plecs_webserver), no prerequisites such as whether a connection or license is required, and no exclusions. The intent is implied only by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.