Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TIA Portal MCP Server

TIA Portal MCP Server

by BJM1122
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Apply TIA Project Import

tia_apply_import
Destructive

Consumes a confirmed import plan token to import planned blocks into the running TIA Portal process, with target backups, compile, re-export comparison, and automatic rollback on failure.

Instructions

Consume one import plan token and import its blocks into the exact running TIA process with the version-selected importer: back up every target, override-import (data blocks first), compile, re-export and compare every block, roll back on any failure, and optionally save. blocks must repeat the planned blocks in the planned order. Never downloads to a PLC.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectPath": "<projectPath>",
      "blocks": "<blocks>",
      "confirmToken": "<confirmToken>"
    },
    "name": "tia_apply_import"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
blocksYes
outDirNo
timeoutMsNoAt most 600000. A software compile and a possible rollback compile must both fit.
projectPathYes
confirmTokenYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.29.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds real substance beyond that: per-target backup, data-blocks-first ordering, compile, re-export and compare of every block, rollback on failure, and optional save. It stops short of stating permission requirements, token single-use/expiry behavior, or what a failure response looks like.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and then a compact ordered pipeline, with the critical constraints ('blocks must repeat...', 'Never downloads to a PLC') at the end where they are visible. The pipeline sentence is long and run-on but nearly every clause conveys a distinct behavioral fact.

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 destructive, multi-stage tool with no output schema, the description discloses the full pipeline, failure handling (rollback), and side effects (save, backup), which is the essential context. Gaps are the return/result shape after apply and the meaning of outDir/projectPath, which the rich behavioral narrative mostly offsets.

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 only 20%, so the description must carry weight, and it does explain the semantics of 'blocks' (repeat the planned blocks in the planned order) and, incidentally, confirmToken ('consume one import plan token'). projectPath and outDir get no explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving two of five parameters ambiguous.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: consume one import plan token and import its blocks into the running TIA process using the version-selected importer. It implicitly pairs with a plan-creating sibling ('import plan token') but never names that sibling or any of the apply_* alternatives, so differentiation stays inferential.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the execution step after a plan token exists, and the description warns 'Never downloads to a PLC' and that blocks must repeat the planned blocks in planned order. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as the HMI apply variants.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools