FlexSim MCP Server

connect_objects

Connects two FlexSim objects in a model by creating an A output-to-input link or an S shared link, defaulting to A.

Instructions

如未先读操作指南，请先调用 get_guide。连接两个对象（A 连接=输出到输入，S 连接=共享）。contextdragconnection 语义，A 键建输入输出连接。

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": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "connect_objects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	目标对象名（下游）
`key`	No	连接类型，默认 A
`from`	Yes	源对象名（上游）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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. It implies a mutation (creating a connection between existing objects) but says nothing about required permissions, what happens if a duplicate connection exists, whether it is reversible, or how failures are reported—only a pointer to the guide.

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?

It is a short, front-loaded definition where the prerequisite comes first and the core action second. The phrase 'contextdragconnection 语义' is unexplained jargon that could be removed or replaced with plain explanation.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and connection-type semantics but omits error behavior, object-existence requirements, and node addressing conventions visible in siblings like get_node and create_object.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by explaining what the enum values actually mean: A is an output-to-input connection and S is a shared connection. The 'from'/'to' upstream/downstream roles are already documented in the schema descriptions.

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 ('连接两个对象' / connect two objects) and even disambiguates the two connection kinds (A = output-to-input, S = shared). No sibling tool offers connection behavior, so the distinction is easy to make, though the trailing 'contextdragconnection 语义' is opaque jargon that adds little.

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?

It gives an explicit procedural prerequisite: call get_guide first if the operating guide has not been read. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer or avoid this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_object, add_node), and no preconditions such as whether both objects must already exist.

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