Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-lsp

agent-lsp

by blackwell-systems
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

create_simulation_session

Create a sandboxed session to simulate code edits without committing to disk, returning a session ID for exploring what-if scenarios.

Instructions

Create a new speculative code session for simulating edits without committing to disk. Returns a session ID. Baseline diagnostics are captured lazily on first edit per file. Use this to explore what-if scenarios before applying changes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspace_root": "<workspace_root>",
      "language": "<language>"
    },
    "name": "create_simulation_session"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
languageYes
workspace_rootYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.16.0
  2. Removedv0.15.0
  3. Addedv0.11.1
  4. Removedv0.10.0
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behavioral traits: it's speculative (no disk commit), returns a session ID, and captures diagnostics lazily. However, it omits details like whether the session is temporary or how to clean up.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the core purpose, then add behavioral detail. No redundant words; each sentence delivers unique value.

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?

The description adequately covers purpose and behavior for a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema. However, missing parameter details reduce completeness; the agent must guess valid inputs.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'language' or 'workspace_root' beyond their names. The description adds no semantic meaning, leaving the agent to infer acceptable values.

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 clearly states the tool creates a session for simulating edits without disk writes, returns a session ID, and mentions lazy diagnostics. It distinguishes from siblings like simulate_edit and commit_session by focusing on what-if scenarios.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use this to explore what-if scenarios before applying changes,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list implies other tools for direct application.

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