# ReliaSim (remote · reliasim.com)

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

- Trust score: 62/100 (medium)
- Change this week: +4
- Registry status: active
- Liveness: live
- Owner verified: no
- Last scored: 2026-08-03

## Components

- remote · `reliasim.com`: 62/100 (this document), [markdown](https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-reliasim-public/reliasim.md), [page](https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-reliasim-public/reliasim)

## Channel facts

- Endpoint: `https://reliasim.com/mcp`
- Transports: `streamable-http`
- Auth: `none`
- Version: `1.0.0`

## Trust breakdown

How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. Scores are 0–100 per category. Scoring method: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring (what has changed: https://verifymcp.io/docs/scoring/changelog)

Scored 2026-08-03.

- **Endpoint Security**: 63/100
  - The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key.
  - Authorisation not fully verified: no authorisation is required to call this server, and 8 tool(s) never declared a destructiveHint. The MCP spec treats an absent hint as destructive by default, so we cannot call this surface safe.
  - HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path.
  - The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present.
  - DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC.
- **Transport & Reachability**: 100/100
  - Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake.
- **Schema Quality & AI Usability**: 61/100
  - AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).
  - Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 2151 tokens (~268/item across 8 items; 8 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params.
  - Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples.
- **Stability & Change Management**: 27/100
  - Stability observed for 8 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.
- **Tool Coverage**: 100/100
  - 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).
  - 100% of tool parameters carry a description.
- **Capabilities**: 20/100
  - Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2024-11-05; the latest is 2026-07-28.

## Install

### Claude

```bash
claude mcp add --transport http com-reliasim-public https://reliasim.com/mcp
```

### Codex

```toml
[mcp_servers.com-reliasim-public]
url = "https://reliasim.com/mcp"
```

### opencode

```json
{
  "$schema": "https://opencode.ai/config.json",
  "mcp": {
    "com-reliasim-public": {
      "type": "remote",
      "url": "https://reliasim.com/mcp",
      "enabled": true
    }
  }
}
```

### OpenClaw

```bash
openclaw mcp add com-reliasim-public --url https://reliasim.com/mcp --transport streamable-http
```

### Hermes

```yaml
mcp_servers:
  com-reliasim-public:
    url: "https://reliasim.com/mcp"
```

### Other

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

The mcpServers block is a cross-client convention. Remote transports vary, so check your client's docs.

## Changelog

Every change recorded for this component, newest first. Days that predate change tracking, or that we cannot explain, say so: "we were watching and nothing happened" and "we were not watching" are different claims.

### 2026-08-02 (score 62, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 20 to 23. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 6 days of observed history at the previous scan, 7 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

### 2026-07-31 (score 61, +1)

- [functional] We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server

### 2026-07-30 (score 60, +1)

- [functional] We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server

### 2026-07-28 (score 59, +1)

No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 3 to 7. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 1 days of observed history at the previous scan, 2 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.

### 2026-07-27 (score 58, +1)

- [functional] We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server

### 2026-07-26 (score 57)

First indexed and scored.

## MCP tools (8)

### `find_bottleneck` (~198 tokens)

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.

Input parameters:

- `chapter` (string): Which curriculum chapter the tool should answer about. Format: `bs<1-5>-<ct|leds>`. Both tracks run on the same real plant data — `ct` = Constraint-Level (interrupts rolled up to one Weibull per mach…

### `get_chapter_facts` (~167 tokens)

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.

Input parameters:

- `chapter` (string): Which curriculum chapter the tool should answer about. Format: `bs<1-5>-<ct|leds>`. Both tracks run on the same real plant data — `ct` = Constraint-Level (interrupts rolled up to one Weibull per mach…

### `get_chapter_narrative` (~157 tokens)

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.

Input parameters:

- `chapter` (string): Which curriculum chapter the tool should answer about. Format: `bs<1-5>-<ct|leds>`. Both tracks run on the same real plant data — `ct` = Constraint-Level (interrupts rolled up to one Weibull per mach…

### `run_gain_loss` (~250 tokens)

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.

Input parameters:

- `chapter` (string): Which curriculum chapter the tool should answer about. Format: `bs<1-5>-<ct|leds>`. Both tracks run on the same real plant data — `ct` = Constraint-Level (interrupts rolled up to one Weibull per mach…

### `run_buffer_tradeoff` (~408 tokens)

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.

Input parameters:

- `buffer` (string): Buffer id to sweep. The Buffer-Options Constraint-Level model has `b3` (Buffer 1, between Capper↔Labeler), `b4` (Buffer 2, between Labeler↔Case Packer), `b5` (Buffer 3, between Case Packer↔Palletizer…
- `chapter` (string): Chapter id. Only `bs4-ct` and `bs4-leds` have buffer tradeoffs defined.

### `explain_concept` (~149 tokens)

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.

Input parameters:

- `concept` (string, required): Which concept to explain. Returns a definitional primer — theory, not interpretation of a specific simulation run. Use for 'what is a Constraint?' / 'what are cascading losses?' / 'explain Gain-Loss'.

### `compare_chapters` (~190 tokens)

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.

Input parameters:

- `chapter_a` (string, required): First chapter id (left column of the comparison). Defaults to bs1-ct.
- `chapter_b` (string, required): Second chapter id (right column of the comparison). Defaults to bs1-leds — same plant data as bs1-ct, but with interrupts drilled down to named failure modes; the canonical first-look comparison.

### `run_showcase` (~331 tokens)

LIVE experiment — run a bottling-line demo against the real ReliaSim engine with parameters you choose, and get its verbatim run envelope (metadata, execution stats, metrics, details). This is the only tool that COMPUTES fresh output: dial `duration_days` (or buffer capacities on the bs4 demos) and see the real numbers for that exact configuration. IMPORTANT: a run_showcase result is NOT a verified reference number — it is live output for the parameters you passed. Label it as an experiment result, not a canonical figure, and don't blend it with the curated reference numbers. For the canonical, verified OEE/throughput/bottleneck values use find_bottleneck / run_gain_loss / run_buffer_tradeoff instead. Quote any figures verbatim; do not round, average, or derive.

Input parameters:

- `demo_id` (string, required): Which bottling-line demo to run live. Same eight ids as the curated tools (bs1-ct … bs4-leds).
- `knobs` (object): Optional parameters as a map of name:number. All eight demos accept `duration_days` (run length, 7–90 days). The two Buffer-Options demos also accept buffer capacities: bs4-ct → `buffer_capacity_b3`…

## Diagnostics

Captured diagnostic sections: TLS, DNSSEC, Authorisation, Transports. The full working is on the page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-reliasim-public/reliasim#diagnostics

## Score history

- 2026-08-03: 62
- 2026-08-02: 62
- 2026-08-01: 61
- 2026-07-31: 61
- 2026-07-30: 60
- 2026-07-29: 59
- 2026-07-28: 59
- 2026-07-27: 58
- 2026-07-26: 57

## Links

- Remote endpoint: https://reliasim.com/mcp
- Repository: https://github.com/chiaha-ai/reliasim-site
- Changelog RSS feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-reliasim-public/reliasim/changelog.xml
- Changelog JSON feed: https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-reliasim-public/reliasim/changelog.json
- HTML version of this page: https://verifymcp.io/servers/com-reliasim-public/reliasim