Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TIA Portal MCP Server

TIA Portal MCP Server

by BJM1122
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

tia_export_hmi_native

Read-onlyIdempotent

Exports WinCC V20 screens and templates as native XML via the official API; discover targets and list object paths to select HMI objects for read-only analysis.

Instructions

Read-only classic WinCC V20 native screen/template XML export using the official API. Discover exact targets first, then list object paths with an empty objectPath. Requires exact PID, process start and project. Dependencies are not included; this is not a complete HMI backup.

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": {
      "processId": "<processId>",
      "processStartTimeUtc": "<processStartTimeUtc>",
      "projectPath": "<projectPath>"
    },
    "name": "tia_export_hmi_native"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoscreen
operationNodiscover
processIdYes
objectPathNo
targetPathNo
projectPathYes
processStartTimeUtcYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.29.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description's job is additive context and it delivers: it discloses the official-API mechanism, the deliberate exclusion of dependencies, and the required process/project binding. It does not describe what the export produces or where targetPath writes, leaving a modest gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then workflow, then prerequisites, then scope caveat. Each sentence carries distinct information with no repetition; the terse phrasing 'Requires exact PID, process start and project' is dense but readable.

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?

For a 7-parameter, no-output-schema tool with 0% schema coverage, the description covers the workflow and scope well but leaves targetPath's role and the returned artifact unaddressed. An agent could sequence the calls correctly yet be unsure where output lands on export.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the three required identifiers, the empty-objectPath listing idiom, and implies the kind and operation enums through 'screen/template' and 'discover...export,' but targetPath is never explained and the two enum value sets are only inferable.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('native screen/template XML export') and pins the target technology ('classic WinCC V20', 'official API'). It explicitly scopes itself against adjacent tools by stating 'Dependencies are not included; this is not a complete HMI backup,' which separates it from bundle-style exports in the sibling list.

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?

It gives an ordered workflow: 'Discover exact targets first, then list object paths with an empty objectPath,' which maps directly onto the discover/export enum and the empty-default objectPath. It also states prerequisites ('exact PID, process start and project'). What's missing is an explicit named alternative for when the caller wants dependencies, though 'not a complete HMI backup' implies the boundary.

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