Skip to main content
Glama

Reverse-engineer NodeSet2 XML

opcua_model_reverse
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reverse-engineer a NodeSet2.xml file back into the YAML DSL format. Requires an API key (set OPCUA_MODELER_API_KEY env var). Optionally specify the target namespace URI to extract.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xmlYesThe NodeSet2.xml content to reverse-engineer
namespace_uriNoTarget namespace URI to extract (auto-detected if omitted)
self_containedNoReturn one self-contained .opcua.yaml stream: the model, its NodeId symbol table and dependency declarations (default: bare YAML)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / self_contained
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Return one self-contained .opcua.yaml stream: the model, its NodeId symbol table and dependency declarations (default: bare YAML)",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: an external API key requirement and the option to target a specific namespace URI. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key prerequisite and an optional behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with three documented parameters, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output format, authentication, and optional behavior. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly routing between the reverse and generate directions, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description only lightly reinforces the namespace_uri parameter and adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reverse-engineer a NodeSet2.xml file into YAML DSL format. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like opcua_model_generate, which presumably perform the forward direction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The use case is clear from the phrase 'back into the YAML DSL format,' and the API key requirement is stated as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.