FlexSim MCP Server

create_object

Creates FlexSim model objects such as Queue, Processor, or Conveyor from the object library by specifying type and name. Call get_guide first if unfamiliar with operation instructions.

Instructions

如未先读操作指南，请先调用 get_guide。从 FlexSim 对象库创建对象到模型。类型如 Source/Sink/Queue/Processor/Dispatcher/Rack/Conveyor/Combiner/Separator/MergeSort/Transporter/Robot/Operator/ProcessFlow 等。

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": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	对象名（如 Q2）
`type`	Yes	对象类型（库类名，如 Queue）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

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 burden for a mutating tool. It does not say whether a model must already be open/selected as target, where the object is placed in the model, what happens on duplicate names or invalid types, or what the call returns — all material for a create operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the prerequisite, then the action and allowed types. No filler; the only mild redundancy is repeating 'object type' guidance already implied by the schema.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the definition covers purpose, prerequisite and valid types, which is the minimum an agent needs to invoke it. It remains silent on preconditions (open model / selected target instance) and post-conditions (returned handle or placement), leaving a clear gap.

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. The description adds value by enumerating valid library class names (Source/Sink/Queue/Processor/...), effectively supplying an informal enum the schema lacks, which materially reduces type-guessing for the agent.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: create objects into the model from the FlexSim object library. The enumerated type list makes the scope concrete and distinguishes it from siblings like delete_object or add_node, though the phrasing is terse.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite: call get_guide first if the operation guide hasn't been read. That is real routing guidance an agent can act on. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or which alternative to pick (e.g., add_node for tree nodes), so not a 5.

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