FlexSim MCP Server

list_handlers

List all deployed handler names for a target FlexSim model and instance so you can identify which functions the model exposes over HTTP.

Instructions

列出目标模型已部署的所有 handler（功能）名称。handler 位于 Tools/serverinterface/queryhandlers 目录，是模型可通过 HTTP 调用的功能节点。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_handlers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model`	No	模型名，默认当前目标实例
`instance`	No	实例号，默认当前目标实例

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the burden. It implies a non-destructive listing operation and clarifies that handlers are HTTP-callable nodes under a specific directory, but it does not state the return shape (a list of names), behavior on missing/invalid model or instance, or any permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, followed by useful context defining a handler. No redundant or filler wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, two-optional-parameter discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned (handler names for the target model) and what a handler is. Minor gaps remain around error behavior and how model/instance interact with the selected target.

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 description coverage is 100% and both optional parameters (model, instance) are documented in the schema as defaulting to the current target instance. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond that baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('列出目标模型已部署的所有 handler（功能）名称') and adds a definition of what a handler is and where it lives (Tools/serverinterface/queryhandlers, HTTP-invokable). This distinguishes it from siblings like deploy_handler and call_handler, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as call_handler or deploy_handler, nor any prerequisites mentioned. Usage is only implied by the discovery-oriented phrasing.

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