FlexSim MCP Server

rename_node

Rename a model tree node or object by providing its old path and new name. Automatically deploys the rename handler first if the model lacks one.

Instructions

给模型树节点/对象改名。value=旧路径，name=新名。若模型未装 rename_node handler 会自动先部署再调用。

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	新名
`path`	Yes	旧路径/旧名

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious trait: if the model lacks a rename_node handler, it is deployed first and then invoked, so the agent knows the call may mutate installation state. It says nothing about permissions, failure modes for invalid paths, or whether the rename is reversible.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and then the argument mapping, with no filler. The only blemish is the 'value' label that does not match any schema property.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, arguments, and one side effect. It remains thin on error behavior and on whether the rename propagates to existing connections, which matters given the sibling object-graph tools.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's explanation of old-path/new-name semantics is redundant but harmless. It does introduce a naming mismatch by referring to the old path as 'value' while the actual parameter is 'path', which could mildly confuse argument construction.

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 names a specific verb and resource: renaming a node/object in the model tree. That is enough to separate it from read-side siblings such as get_node and list_tree, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from write_node or the more generic call_handler/deploy_handler pair.

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 guidance on when to prefer this over write_node or call_handler, and no stated preconditions such as whether the path must already exist or whether renaming affects references from connect_objects. The only conditional behavior mentioned is the implicit auto-deploy, not a usage rule.

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