# ReliaSim

> Reliability and bottleneck simulation for manufacturing lines; run experiments, sweep buffers.

- name: com.reliasim/public
- version: 1.0.0
- connection class: R0 (autonomous)
- trust: 86/100
- quality: 79/100 (good)
- owner: not claimed
- descriptor: https://api.protogrid.dev/v1/servers/com.reliasim%2Fpublic
- tools: https://api.protogrid.dev/v1/servers/com.reliasim%2Fpublic/tools

**An agent can connect right now, no human step.** Remote endpoint, no authentication, reachable on the last probe.

## Connection (mcpServers)

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "public": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://reliasim.com/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```


## Trust

- hygiene: 100
- liveness: 100
- freshness: 65
- provenance: 75
- drivers: +repository +dns-namespace +reachable +uptime-100% ~updated-146d-ago
- Derived from observable signals (official registry feed and our own credential-free probes); no code audit performed.

## Quality 79/100 (good)

### protocol: 75 (weight 25)

- warn `protocol.modern`: newest supported version is 2024-11-05; 2026-07-28 not supported, older versions are deprecated until 2027-07-28
- n/a `protocol.stateless`: only applies to 2026-07-28 servers
- pass `protocol.transport`: streamable HTTP
- n/a `protocol.list_ttl`: only applies to 2026-07-28 servers

### authorization: n/a (weight 15)

- n/a `auth.prm`, `auth.as_metadata`, `auth.cimd`: no remote uses OAuth
- n/a `auth.secret_in_url`: no templated URL

### tool hygiene: 71 (weight 30)

- pass `tools.descriptions`: every tool has a description
- pass `tools.description_length`: descriptions are concise
- pass `tools.schemas`: every tool has an object input schema
- fail `tools.annotations`: no tool declares readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so clients cannot tell safe calls from risky ones
- fail `tools.directory_hints`: no tool declares all four of readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint; missing: find_bottleneck (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint); get_chapter_narrative (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint); run_gain_loss (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint); …
- pass `tools.token_cost`: about 1,933 tokens to load every tool
- pass `tools.api_dump`: tools are not a one-to-one API dump

### stability: 100 (weight 15)

- pass `stability.changes`: no tool changes in 30 days
- pass `stability.rug_pull`: no tool changed its meaning under the same name

### dependencies: n/a (weight 15)

- n/a `deps.known_vulns`, `deps.mcp_sdk_version`, `deps.resolvable`: no npm or PyPI package

- tools: 7, about 1,933 tokens to load them all
- tool set hash: ba83b3612ba9e80c1b2428a7372fdbd6
- badge: [![protogrid quality](https://protogrid.dev/badge/com.reliasim/public.svg)](https://protogrid.dev/servers/com.reliasim/public)
- Checks run on what our credential-free, read-only probes observe; tools are never called and no code audit is performed.

### Tool changes

_No tool definition changes recorded._

## Remotes

- https://reliasim.com/mcp (streamable-http, auth none, reachable true, uptime30d 1)

## Packages

_none_

## Tools (7)

- `compare_chapters`: Side-by-side comparison of two chapters — tracks, topology, OEE, throughput, headline bottleneck. Output is sim-derived (no interpretation drift). Use for 'how does X compare to Y?' / 'what's the difference between Constraint-Level and LEDS-Level on the same model?' / 'what changes when we add buffers?' questions. ANTI-FABRICATION: per-chapter OEE/throughput numbers are real reference values; the side-by-side delta is computed from them, not estimated. Quote VERBATIM.
- `explain_concept`: Definitional primer for ReliaSim's framework concepts — Constraint, Buffer, Interrupt, Converter, cascading losses, OEE, Gain/Loss methodology, Buffer Tradeoff. Returns bundled theory content, NOT interpretation of any specific simulation run. Use for 'what is X?' / 'how does X work?' / 'explain the framework' questions. For line-specific claims (throughput, availability, what-if), call the sim tools instead.
- `find_bottleneck`: Single Run bottleneck analysis for the selected chapter — which node has the worst availability, per-interrupt downtime split, throughput, OEE. All eight chapters return verified dys-cli sales-prototype numbers. ANTI-FABRICATION: numbers in the response are canonical reference values from real dys-cli engine runs. Quote them VERBATIM. Do not round, estimate, or recall from training data. For follow-ups about the same chapter, re-call this tool.
- `get_chapter_facts`: Structural facts of the selected chapter — topology, rate limits, interrupt distributions, expected efficiency. Use when the user asks about the line's configuration. ANTI-FABRICATION: rates and distributions are verified .aidos-file values. Quote VERBATIM; do not estimate or substitute training-data recall.
- `get_chapter_narrative`: Long-form narrative for the selected chapter — what the chapter adds to the complexity ladder and the key teaching point. Use when the user asks 'walk me through this' or wants the conceptual primer. Pure prose, no numerical claims; safe to summarize.
- `run_buffer_tradeoff`: Buffer Tradeoff experiment — sweep a buffer's capacity from 50 → 10,000 units, measure throughput gain. Shows the diminishing-returns elbow for buffer sizing. Only defined on `bs4-ct` and `bs4-leds`; each chapter has THREE inline buffers with different placements (pass `buffer` id to pick one). Compare CT vs LEDS on the same slot to see why interrupt-detail level changes buffer ROI math (e.g. b3: CT +23.7% vs LEDS +64.2%). Use when the user asks 'how big should the buffer be?' / 'do buffers help on this line?' / 'which buffer position gives the most gain?' / 'what's the diminishing-returns point?'. ANTI-FABRICATION (CRITICAL): the specific tradeoff numbers (e.g. CT +23.7% vs LEDS +64.2%) are sweep-derived reference values. Quote VERBATIM in your reply; do NOT recall similar percentages from training data — every buffer position has different math.
- `run_gain_loss`: Gain/Loss experiment — disable each interrupt one at a time, measure production recovered. Reveals the ACTUAL impact of each failure mode (Gain ≠ Loss: removing one lets others fire more often). Available on `bs1-leds`, `bs3-leds`, `bs4-ct`, `bs4-leds`. Use when the user asks 'what if we fixed X?' / 'which interrupt matters most if we actually fixed it?' / 'show me the Pareto'. ANTI-FABRICATION: per-interrupt recovered-production numbers come from real dys-cli runs. Quote VERBATIM; the Gain ≠ Loss interaction is exactly the kind of figure LLMs are prone to fabricate — don't.