Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TIA Portal MCP Server

TIA Portal MCP Server

by BJM1122
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get Current TIA UI Context

tia_get_current_ui_context
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the selected TIA Portal version, exact project path, and visible editor context in one bounded passive check without clicking, focusing, capturing the screen, or accessing a PLC.

Instructions

Perform one bounded passive observation of the selected TIA Portal version (V20 by default; other supported versions explicitly selectable), exact project and visible editor evidence. Does not attach, click, focus, poll, capture the screen or access a PLC.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tia_get_current_ui_context"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rootsNoOptional bounded export roots used only to find exact project-path matches.
maxDepthNo
maxNodesNo
processIdNoOptional exact TIA process ID. Required when multiple sessions are visible and none is the foreground TIA window.
timeoutMsNo
portalVersionNoV20
maxExportMatchesNo
includeExportMatchesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.29.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the observation is bounded, passive, single-shot (no polling), and never touches a PLC or screen. The remaining gap is that it does not say what is returned or how large the evidence can be.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the explicit exclusions. No filler or restatement of the title.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and only 25% schema description coverage, the description is too thin: it never explains what 'evidence' is returned, how the depth/node bounds affect results, or when processId becomes necessary.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only portalVersion is meaningfully addressed ('V20 by default; other supported versions explicitly selectable'), which matches the enum already in the schema. With schema description coverage at 25% across 8 parameters, the description leaves roots, maxDepth, maxNodes, processId, timeoutMs, maxExportMatches and includeExportMatches entirely unelaborated, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The verb phrase 'perform one bounded passive observation' is specific about the action's nature, and the object is 'selected TIA Portal version, exact project and visible editor evidence'. However, 'observation' and 'evidence' are abstract enough that an agent cannot immediately tell what it will receive or how this differs from siblings like tia_get_current_block or tia_get_graph_context.

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?

The negative clause ('does not attach, click, focus, poll, capture the screen or access a PLC') usefully bounds when this tool applies versus interactive or screen-based approaches, but there is no positive when-to-use statement and no sibling is named as an alternative for the cases this tool excludes.

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