list_namespacesList all well-known OPC UA companion spec namespace aliases with their full names, URIs, and dependencies. Use this to discover what namespaces are available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope and output content ('full names, URIs, and dependencies') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination or ordering. It does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first states the scope and output fields, the second states the intended use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list operation, the description is complete. It names the resource, scope, output content, and use case. No output schema exists, but the description supplies the essential return-value expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to clarify about inputs. The description still helps by describing what the returned namespace information includes, which is sufficient given the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all well-known OPC UA companion spec namespace aliases' with their names, URIs, and dependencies. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_types and search_types by focusing on companion spec namespaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use this to discover what namespaces are available,' giving a clear intended use case. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for a zero-parameter discovery tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or operation: unit lookup, reusable-block lookup, DSL reference, type details, namespaces, type listing/search, and the four model operations are all clearly separated. Even the two search-like tools (find_reusable_block and search_types) have different intents and return different kinds of results, so an agent should not misselect.
Most utility tools follow a verb_first_snake_case pattern (find_*, get_*, list_*, search_*, resolve_*), but the four workflow tools use an opcua_model_* prefix (create, generate, reverse, validate). This is a blend of two systematic conventions rather than chaotic naming, but it is not fully uniform.
Twelve tools is well within the ideal range for this domain, and each tool covers a distinct aspect of the modeling workflow from discovery and dependency resolution to validation and artifact generation. No tool feels redundant, and the count is appropriate for the stated purpose.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: discovering namespaces/types/units/reusable blocks, resolving dependencies, authoring YAML, validating it, generating artifacts, and reverse-engineering existing NodeSet files. There are no obvious dead ends or essential missing operations for the OPC UA modeling workflow.