FlexSim MCP Server

add_node

Adds a standard node under a specified parent path in the FlexSim model tree, using the provided node name to organize model structure.

Instructions

在模型树指定父节点下添加一个普通节点。add_node=&value=父路径&name=新节点名（参数无关）。

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": {
      "parent": "<parent>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "add_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	新节点名
`parent`	Yes	父节点路径（如 Tools/ModelUnits/ModelDateTimes）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about duplicate-name handling, whether the node persists, required permissions, or failure modes for an invalid parent path. '普通节点' hints at a node-type constraint but does not explain its effect.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the second sentence is a quasi-URL string with unexplained syntax and a parenthetical that confuses rather than clarifies. It costs space without earning it.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what happens on success and on a missing or duplicate name. It covers the basic action but leaves the agent without enough information to predict outcomes.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including a parent-path example. The description only restates the same field meanings in the cryptic form 'add_node=&value=父路径&name=新节点名（参数无关）', which adds no real semantics and the '参数无关' note is unclear.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: add a regular node under a designated parent in the model tree. That distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings such as get_node, write_node, rename_node and delete_object, though '普通节点' (regular node) is never contrasted with other node kinds.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of write_node, create_object, or rename_node, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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