Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Agentic SWMM

Agentic SWMM

by Zhonghao1995
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

swmm_run

Run swmm5 on an INP and write rpt/out + manifest.json into runDir. When 'node' is omitted the runner resolves 'auto' after the run: the outfall carrying the largest total volume in the Outfall Loading Summary (else the first [OUTFALLS]…

Instructions

Run swmm5 on an INP and write rpt/out + manifest.json into runDir. When 'node' is omitted the runner resolves 'auto' after the run: the outfall carrying the largest total volume in the Outfall Loading Summary (else the first [OUTFALLS] entry), so the manifest's peak metric targets the outfall that matters.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inpYes
nodeNoOptional. Omit (or pass 'auto') to report on the outfall carrying the largest total volume after the run.
runDirYes
outNameNo
rptNameNo
memoriesAppliedNoOptional. List of modeling-memory entry ids whose parameters were programmatically applied to this run's inputs (e.g. ["cm-abc123"]). Recorded in manifest.json under 'memories_applied' for auditability. Omit when no memory was applied.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.5
    • changedInput schema / properties / node / description
      Previous value: -"Optional. If omitted, the first [OUTFALLS] entry of the .inp is used."New value: +"Optional. Omit (or pass 'auto') to report on the outfall carrying the largest total volume after the run."
  2. First observedv0.7.3

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that the tool runs an external executable (swmm5) and writes rpt/out and manifest.json into runDir. It also explains the post-run 'auto' node resolution. Remaining gaps include overwrite behavior, error handling, and whether runDir must already exist.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and side effects, and the second sentence is dense but adds necessary context about node resolution. No sentence is wasted.

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?

For a six-parameter execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow and the node auto behavior. It still lacks explanation of outName/rptName, return behavior, and operational details such as failures or overwrites, leaving it only minimally complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description needs to compensate. It clearly explains node omission/auto behavior and implicitly clarifies inp and runDir, but outName and rptName are not explained anywhere, leaving meaningful 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 states a specific verb and resource: run swmm5 on an INP and write rpt/out plus manifest.json into runDir. It is clearly the execution tool among siblings like swmm_peak and swmm_compare, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate those alternatives.

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 gives useful guidance for the optional node parameter, explaining the 'auto' resolution behavior. However, it does not say when to use swmm_run versus swmm_peak, swmm_compare, or swmm_continuity, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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