Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TIA Portal MCP Server

TIA Portal MCP Server

by BJM1122
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

tia_edit_hmi_native

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generates an offline native XML candidate from exact UTF-16 range edits and expected text while preserving all unedited vendor XML; does not import, compile, or verify dependency compatibility.

Instructions

Create an offline native XML candidate using exact UTF-16 ranges and expected text. Preserves every unedited range, including unknown vendor XML. Does not import, compile or establish dependency compatibility.

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": {
      "originalXml": "<originalXml>",
      "baselineSha256": "<baselineSha256>",
      "edits": "<edits>"
    },
    "name": "tia_edit_hmi_native"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
editsYes
originalXmlYes
baselineSha256Yes

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real value beyond them: it preserves every unedited range including unknown vendor XML, and it explicitly disclaims import/compile/dependency effects. It stops short of describing what is returned (a candidate string?) or what happens when baseline/expected text does not match.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and artifact, then the preservation guarantee, then the explicit non-goals. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description should describe the returned candidate and any failure/mismatch behavior, which it does not. For a 3-parameter, 0%-coverage tool requiring a hash baseline, the definition is adequate but leaves meaningful behavioral questions open.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does convey that ranges are exact UTF-16 offsets and that "expected" text acts as a stale-content guard. It says nothing about baselineSha256 (the third required parameter) or about how start/end relate to the original XML, leaving a substantial gap for a 0%-coverage schema.

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?

States a concrete verb and artifact: "Create an offline native XML candidate using exact UTF-16 ranges and expected text." The scope limitation ("Does not import, compile or establish dependency compatibility") separates it from the apply/import siblings without naming them. Slightly short of 5 because it never names which sibling is the alternative for the same edit surface.

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?

Gives an implicit when-to-use by declaring what it is not (no import, no compile, no dependency check), which usefully routes agents away from apply-style skills. However, it never states when to choose this over tia_edit_hmi_text or the edit-plan tools, and omits the precondition that a matching baseline is required.

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