Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TIA Portal MCP Server

TIA Portal MCP Server

by BJM1122
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Search TIA Export

tia_search_export
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search a read-only TIA Portal export index to locate XML text matches, block and tag inventory, symbols, and references for offline project analysis.

Instructions

Search one export index; bounded and read-only. in=text (default): plain-text search across the indexed XML files. in=inventory: block/type/tag names and call edges. in=symbols: symbol table from block interfaces, DB members and PLC tag tables, filtered by scope and query. in=references: call edges, symbol/tag definitions and XML text matches for the query together, filtered by kind.

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": {
      "exportDir": "<exportDir>"
    },
    "name": "tia_search_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inNotext
kindNoreferences; default any.
limitNoMatches returned. Default 100 text (at most 1000), 50 inventory (200), 1000 symbols (5000), 500 references (2000).
queryNoRequired for text and references; empty lists everything for inventory and symbols.
scopeNosymbols; default all.
maxFilesNoXML files scanned; default 100 text (at most 200), 200 symbols, 150 references.
exportDirYes
contextCharsNotext and references; default 80.
caseSensitiveNotext; default false.
includeTextMatchesNoreferences; default true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.29.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the operation is "bounded" and scoped to a single export index, which is mildly useful context. It does not explain what the bound actually is (the schema owns that) or what a result set looks like, so with annotations in place a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Front-loaded with the core scope statement, then a tight semicolon-delimited enumeration of modes with no filler sentences. The dense `in=mode:` formatting is scannable and every clause carries information. It is efficient rather than padded.

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 10-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the mode dimension well but says nothing about the shape of returned matches (counts, snippets, contextChars effect on output). The per-mode defaults and caps live in the schema, so the gap is not severe, but an agent gets no expectation of what comes back.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 80%, so most parameters are already documented, but the description adds real meaning to the `in` enum by explaining what each mode searches rather than just listing the labels. It also implicitly ties `query`, `scope` and `kind` to particular modes through those mode descriptions. The numeric tuning parameters (limit, maxFiles, contextChars, caseSensitive) are left entirely to the 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 specific verb and resource ("Search one export index") and then defines all four modes of the `in` parameter, so the agent can tell what each variant retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings such as tia_search_live_objects or tia_search_analysis_notes, so the agent gets no signal about which search surface to pick.

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 largest usage decision here is which `in` mode to select, and the description gives clear context for each one (plain XML text vs. inventory vs. symbol table vs. combined references with kind filtering). It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming an alternative tool to use instead, so there is no "when not to use this" guidance.

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