FlexSim MCP Server

list_tree

Browse child nodes at any model tree path, returning names and types for structure exploration and node-path discovery; use MODEL: or blank for the root and relative paths for subnodes.

Instructions

浏览模型树任意路径的子节点（treelayer），返回子节点名与类型。root 用 MODEL: 或留空；子路径用相对路径（如 Tools/ModelUnits 或对象名 Q1）。用于探索模型结构、找节点路径。

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_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No	树路径，留空或 MODEL: 表示模型根层

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 supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does imply a read-only enumeration and discloses the return shape (child names and types), which is useful. It does not say what happens on an invalid path, whether traversal depth is limited, or how large a tree is returned, which are meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Three short sentences ordered sensibly: what it does, how to form the path, why to use it. No filler. The path-format sentence could be slightly tighter but nothing is wasted.

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?

With one optional parameter, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, path syntax including the root case, and the returned fields. Error behavior and depth limits remain unstated, which is the only real gap for a tool of this complexity.

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% and the single optional path parameter is already documented as 'empty or MODEL: means the model root layer', so the schema does most of the work. The description adds concrete example path forms ('Tools/ModelUnits' or object name 'Q1'), which is a modest value-add over the schema but largely restates the root convention.

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 in 'browse the child nodes of any path in the model tree', and adds what is returned ('child node names and types'), which goes beyond the bare name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as list_models or get_node, so an agent must still infer the boundary, keeping this below a 5.

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?

The final clause 'used to explore model structure, find node paths' gives a clear use context. However, it offers no when-not guidance and does not name an alternative (e.g., get_node for a single node's data vs. list_tree for enumerating children), so the agent has to infer the split.

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