Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TIA Portal MCP Server

TIA Portal MCP Server

by BJM1122
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create TIA Import Plan

tia_create_import_plan
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validates 1–20 candidate Simatic ML blocks as one change and returns review text plus a short-lived confirmation token bound to the live TIA project for plan-gated imports with rollback.

Instructions

Read-only validation for importing 1 to 20 candidate Simatic ML blocks as one change (for example a DB member plus the FC networks that use it). Binds one short-lived confirmation token to the exact live TIA process and project, every candidate XML digest and target identity, each target's current content digest, the importer and API identity, and the save choice. Several blocks also return each candidate as compact text for review; tia_apply_import then imports them in one session, data blocks first, with one software compile, and rolls all of them back on any failure.

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>"
    },
    "name": "tia_create_import_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
blocksYes
processIdNo
timeoutMsNo
projectPathYes
saveProjectNoDefault false: the project stays unsaved for review in TIA Portal. true also saves any other unsaved edits in the project.
compileScopeNoOne block only; default software. Several blocks always compile the software.
includeReviewNoSeveral blocks: compact text of each candidate; default true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.29.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description still adds substantial context beyond them: the token is short-lived and bound to the exact live TIA process, project, candidate XML digests, target content digests, importer/API identity and save choice. It also discloses downstream behavior of the apply step (data blocks first, one software compile, full rollback on any failure), which is exactly the risk information an agent needs before committing to this flow.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope before the token and apply-step details. The second sentence is long and stacks many binding elements, but each clause carries distinct information about what is being locked in; little is wasted.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only planning tool with annotations covering its safety profile and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what it validates, what the resulting token is bound to, that review text is returned for several blocks, and how the follow-up apply behaves including rollback. No material gap remains for correct invocation.

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 coverage is only 38%, and the description compensates only partially: it establishes the 1-to-20 block count, explains that candidates are returned as compact text for review (the includeReview behavior), and frames saveProject as a 'save choice' folded into the token. projectPath, processId, timeoutMs and note are left entirely to the schema, and the digest/identity binding is described only at a conceptual level.

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 opening clause names a specific verb and resource: read-only validation that produces an import plan for 1 to 20 candidate Simatic ML blocks treated as one change. It also scopes the unit of work ('a DB member plus the FC networks that use it') and implicitly contrasts with tia_apply_import, which performs the write, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 workflow is made explicit: this tool validates and binds a confirmation token, then 'tia_apply_import then imports them in one session.' That tells the agent this is the mandatory pre-step before applying. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition (e.g., single-block cases or when the project is not live), so it stops short of a full 5.

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