Skip to main content
Glama

simulate_execution

Simulate code execution using LLM to trace paths without running code. Validate documentation examples by predicting behavior, detecting issues like null references or type mismatches, and comparing against expected results.

Instructions

Simulate code execution using LLM to trace execution paths without running the code. Validates documentation examples by predicting behavior, detecting potential issues (null references, type mismatches, unreachable code), and comparing against expected results. Supports building call graphs for complex execution path analysis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
exampleCodeYesThe code example to simulate (from documentation)
implementationCodeNoThe actual implementation code to trace against (if not using implementationPath)
implementationPathNoPath to the implementation file (alternative to implementationCode)
entryPointNoFunction name to start tracing from (auto-detected if not provided)
expectedBehaviorNoDescription of expected behavior for validation
optionsNo

Implementation Reference

  • Main execution handler for the 'simulate_execution' tool. Processes inputs, simulates execution using LLM/static analysis, generates trace, validation, summary, and recommendations.
    export async function handleSimulateExecution(
      args: SimulateExecutionInput,
      context?: any,
    ): Promise<SimulateExecutionResult> {
      await context?.info?.("đŸ”Ŧ Starting execution simulation...");
    
      const {
        exampleCode,
        implementationCode,
        implementationPath,
        entryPoint,
        expectedBehavior,
        options,
      } = args;
    
      // Get implementation code
      let implCode = implementationCode;
      if (!implCode && implementationPath) {
        try {
          implCode = await fs.readFile(implementationPath, "utf-8");
          await context?.info?.(
            `📄 Loaded implementation from ${path.basename(implementationPath)}`,
          );
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            success: false,
            trace: createEmptyTrace(),
            summary: `Failed to load implementation file: ${implementationPath}`,
            recommendations: [
              "Verify the implementation path exists and is readable",
            ],
          };
        }
      }
    
      if (!implCode) {
        // Use example code as implementation if none provided
        implCode = exampleCode;
        await context?.info?.("â„šī¸ No implementation provided, using example code");
      }
    
      // Create simulator
      const simulator = createExecutionSimulator(options);
      const isLLMAvailable = simulator.isLLMAvailable();
    
      if (!isLLMAvailable) {
        await context?.info?.(
          "âš ī¸ LLM not available, using static analysis fallback",
        );
      }
    
      try {
        // Perform simulation
        await context?.info?.("🔄 Simulating execution...");
        const trace = await simulator.simulateExecution(
          exampleCode,
          implCode,
          entryPoint,
        );
    
        // Validate against expected behavior if provided
        let validation: ExampleValidationResult | undefined;
        if (expectedBehavior) {
          await context?.info?.("📋 Validating against expected behavior...");
          validation = await simulator.validateExample(
            exampleCode,
            implCode,
            expectedBehavior,
          );
        }
    
        // Build call graph if requested
        let callGraph: CallGraph | undefined;
        if (options?.includeCallGraph !== false && implementationPath) {
          await context?.info?.("đŸŒŗ Building call graph...");
          try {
            const astAnalyzer = new ASTAnalyzer();
            await astAnalyzer.initialize();
            const analysis = await astAnalyzer.analyzeFile(implementationPath);
            if (analysis && trace.entryPoint) {
              callGraph = await simulator.buildCallGraph(
                trace.entryPoint,
                analysis,
              );
            }
          } catch (error) {
            // Call graph is optional, don't fail on error
            await context?.info?.("âš ī¸ Could not build call graph");
          }
        }
    
        // Generate summary and recommendations
        const summary = generateSummary(trace, validation, isLLMAvailable);
        const recommendations = generateRecommendations(trace, validation);
    
        const issueCount = trace.potentialIssues.length;
        const confidencePercent = Math.round(trace.confidenceScore * 100);
        const status =
          issueCount === 0
            ? "✅ No issues found"
            : `âš ī¸ ${issueCount} issue(s) detected`;
    
        await context?.info?.(`${status} (${confidencePercent}% confidence)`);
    
        return {
          success: true,
          trace,
          validation,
          callGraph,
          summary,
          recommendations,
        };
      } catch (error) {
        const errorMessage =
          error instanceof Error ? error.message : "Unknown error";
        await context?.info?.(`❌ Simulation failed: ${errorMessage}`);
    
        return {
          success: false,
          trace: createEmptyTrace(),
          summary: `Simulation failed: ${errorMessage}`,
          recommendations: [
            "Check that the code is valid TypeScript/JavaScript",
            "Verify the implementation is available",
            "Try with a simpler code example",
          ],
        };
      }
    }
  • Tool registration/definition including name, description, and complete input schema for MCP integration.
    export const simulateExecution: Tool = {
      name: "simulate_execution",
      description:
        "Simulate code execution using LLM to trace execution paths without running the code. " +
        "Validates documentation examples by predicting behavior, detecting potential issues " +
        "(null references, type mismatches, unreachable code), and comparing against expected results. " +
        "Supports building call graphs for complex execution path analysis.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          exampleCode: {
            type: "string",
            description: "The code example to simulate (from documentation)",
          },
          implementationCode: {
            type: "string",
            description:
              "The actual implementation code to trace against (if not using implementationPath)",
          },
          implementationPath: {
            type: "string",
            description:
              "Path to the implementation file (alternative to implementationCode)",
          },
          entryPoint: {
            type: "string",
            description:
              "Function name to start tracing from (auto-detected if not provided)",
          },
          expectedBehavior: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Description of expected behavior for validation",
          },
          options: {
            type: "object",
            properties: {
              maxDepth: {
                type: "number",
                description: "Maximum call depth to trace (default: 10)",
              },
              maxSteps: {
                type: "number",
                description: "Maximum execution steps to simulate (default: 100)",
              },
              timeoutMs: {
                type: "number",
                description:
                  "Timeout for simulation in milliseconds (default: 30000)",
              },
              includeCallGraph: {
                type: "boolean",
                description: "Include call graph in results (default: true)",
              },
              detectNullRefs: {
                type: "boolean",
                description:
                  "Detect potential null/undefined references (default: true)",
              },
              detectTypeMismatches: {
                type: "boolean",
                description: "Detect type mismatches (default: true)",
              },
              detectUnreachableCode: {
                type: "boolean",
                description: "Detect unreachable code (default: true)",
              },
              confidenceThreshold: {
                type: "number",
                description: "Minimum confidence threshold (0-1, default: 0.7)",
              },
            },
          },
        },
        required: ["exampleCode"],
      },
    };
  • TypeScript interfaces defining input and output schemas for the tool.
    export interface SimulateExecutionInput {
      exampleCode: string;
      implementationCode?: string;
      implementationPath?: string;
      entryPoint?: string;
      expectedBehavior?: string;
      options?: SimulationOptions;
    }
    
    /**
     * Result type for execution simulation
     */
    export interface SimulateExecutionResult {
      success: boolean;
      trace: ExecutionTrace;
      validation?: ExampleValidationResult;
      callGraph?: CallGraph;
      summary: string;
      recommendations: string[];
    }
  • Helper function to create empty trace for error cases.
    function createEmptyTrace(): ExecutionTrace {
      return {
        exampleId: "error",
        entryPoint: "unknown",
        executionSteps: [],
        variablesAccessed: {},
        potentialIssues: [],
        confidenceScore: 0,
        executionPath: [],
        reachedEnd: false,
        simulationDuration: 0,
      };
    }
  • Helper to generate summary from simulation results.
    function generateSummary(
      trace: ExecutionTrace,
      validation?: ExampleValidationResult,
      isLLMAvailable?: boolean,
    ): string {
      const parts: string[] = [];
    
      // Analysis mode
      parts.push(
        isLLMAvailable
          ? "Execution simulated using LLM-based analysis"
          : "Execution analyzed using static analysis (LLM unavailable)",
      );
    
      // Execution overview
      parts.push(`Traced ${trace.executionSteps.length} execution step(s)`);
      parts.push(
        `${Object.keys(trace.variablesAccessed).length} variable(s) tracked`,
      );
    
      // Confidence
      const confidencePercent = Math.round(trace.confidenceScore * 100);
      let confidenceLabel = "low";
      if (confidencePercent >= 80) confidenceLabel = "high";
      else if (confidencePercent >= 50) confidenceLabel = "moderate";
      parts.push(`Confidence: ${confidencePercent}% (${confidenceLabel})`);
    
      // Completion status
      if (trace.reachedEnd) {
        parts.push("Execution completed normally");
      } else {
        parts.push(
          "Execution did not complete (possible early termination or error)",
        );
      }
    
      // Issues
      if (trace.potentialIssues.length > 0) {
        const errors = trace.potentialIssues.filter(
          (i) => i.severity === "error",
        ).length;
        const warnings = trace.potentialIssues.filter(
          (i) => i.severity === "warning",
        ).length;
        const infos = trace.potentialIssues.filter(
          (i) => i.severity === "info",
        ).length;
    
        const issueParts: string[] = [];
        if (errors > 0) issueParts.push(`${errors} error(s)`);
        if (warnings > 0) issueParts.push(`${warnings} warning(s)`);
        if (infos > 0) issueParts.push(`${infos} info(s)`);
    
        parts.push(`Issues detected: ${issueParts.join(", ")}`);
      } else {
        parts.push("No issues detected");
      }
    
      // Validation result
      if (validation) {
        parts.push(
          validation.isValid
            ? "Example validation: PASSED"
            : "Example validation: FAILED",
        );
        if (validation.matchesDocumentation) {
          parts.push("Behavior matches documentation");
        }
      }
    
      return parts.join(". ") + ".";
    }
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a simulation (not actual execution), focuses on tracing and validation, detects specific issues (null references, type mismatches, unreachable code), and compares against expected results. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, error handling, or output format details.

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?

The description is appropriately sized (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: first states the main action, second details validation capabilities, third mentions advanced analysis support. Minor improvement possible by tightening the second sentence.

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 complex tool with 6 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the 'what' and 'why' but lacks details about return values, error conditions, or limitations. The high schema coverage helps, but behavioral aspects could be more fully described.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions 'documentation examples' which relates to exampleCode, and 'complex execution path analysis' which relates to options like maxDepth and includeCallGraph, but doesn't provide significant additional meaning for the 6 parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('simulate', 'trace', 'validate', 'detect', 'compare', 'build') and resources ('code execution', 'execution paths', 'documentation examples', 'call graphs'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on simulation-based analysis rather than deployment, repository analysis, or content validation tools.

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 description implies usage context ('validates documentation examples', 'supports building call graphs for complex execution path analysis') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_simulate_execution or analyze_repository. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tosin2013/documcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server