Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TIA Portal MCP Server

TIA Portal MCP Server

by BJM1122
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List HMI targets

tia_list_hmi_targets
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists exact HMI software names, hardware paths, and API types in a prepared TIA Portal project without reading PLC programs or exporting configuration.

Instructions

List exact HMI software names, hardware paths and API types in a prepared project without reading PLC programs or exporting configuration.

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>"
    },
    "name": "tia_list_hmi_targets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
processIdYes
timeoutMsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.29.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that it does not read PLC programs or export configuration, but leaves the meaning of "prepared project" unexplained (does a project need to be opened/attached first?) and says nothing about output volume or ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the returned data first and the scope constraint second, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple and the description does describe what comes back (software names, hardware paths, API types), which partly substitutes for the missing output schema. But with 0% parameter documentation and an undefined "prepared project" prerequisite, an agent still cannot fully predict the call's requirements.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not compensate at all. Neither processId (presumably a project/session handle) nor timeoutMs is mentioned, and the critical question of what processId refers to is left entirely undocumented.

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?

"List exact HMI software names, hardware paths and API types" gives a concrete verb and names the specific items returned, which sets it apart from export/inspect siblings. It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the closing exclusion clause scopes it clearly enough to act on.

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 phrase "in a prepared project without reading PLC programs or exporting configuration" implies a precondition and a negative boundary, hinting that configuration export belongs to a different tool. However, it never states when an agent should reach for this versus tia_export_hmi_configuration or tia_inspect_unified_hmi; the routing is left to inference.

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