FlexSim MCP Server

call_handler

Invokes any deployed FlexSim handler using generic parameters for value, action, name, and message, returning XML or text; check available handlers first if unsure.

Instructions

通用调用任意已部署 handler。参数用通用名：value（对象/路径）、action（值/动作）、name（新名）、msg（消息）。返回 XML/文本。调用前如不确定 handler 是否存在，先 list_handlers。

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": {
      "handler": "<handler>"
    },
    "name": "call_handler"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`msg`	No	通用参数 msg（消息）
`name`	No	通用参数 name（常为新名字）
`value`	No	通用参数 value（常为对象名或路径）
`action`	No	通用参数 action（常为新值或动作）
`handler`	Yes	handler 名，如 template / create_object / get_stats

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 does disclose the return type (XML/text) and the polymorphic nature of the parameters, which is useful. It omits whether handlers mutate state, what happens on a bad handler name, and how errors surface.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The four short sentences are front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then parameters, return type, and the prerequisite check. There is no padding, although the parameter enumeration reads as a list rather than prose.

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 generic dispatcher with five loosely typed parameters, the definition adequately explains the invocation convention and the existence check. It remains thin on error behavior and the state-mutation risk of arbitrary handlers, which an agent needs before invoking them blindly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the schema descriptions are largely circular ('通用参数 msg（消息）'). The description adds meaning the schema does not provide: these are generic slots whose interpretation depends on the handler (value as object or path, action as a new value or verb). It does not give a per-handler mapping or examples.

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 action and target: a generic invocation of any deployed handler, with the generic parameter names listed. It separates itself from list_handlers through the existence-check advice, but does not explain how it relates to the many domain-specific siblings (create_object, rename_node, control) that presumably map to the same handlers.

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?

There is one explicit piece of guidance: call list_handlers first if you are unsure whether the handler exists. However, it says nothing about when to prefer this generic dispatcher over the dedicated sibling tools for the same operations, which is the main decision an agent faces here.

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