Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TIA Portal MCP Server

TIA Portal MCP Server

by BJM1122
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

tia_update_hmi_object

Read-only

Edit a uniquely named HMI screen object offline: change geometry or RGB color properties while preserving all other native XML, bindings, and extensions verbatim.

Instructions

Offline scoped edit of one uniquely named native screen object. Change existing geometry or RGB color properties while preserving all other native XML, bindings and extensions verbatim.

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>",
      "objectName": "<objectName>",
      "properties": "<properties>"
    },
    "name": "tia_update_hmi_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectNameYes
propertiesYes
originalXmlYes
baselineSha256Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.29.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the no-side-effects profile, and the description usefully adds that the edit is offline, scoped to a single uniquely named object, and non-destructive to bindings/extensions. However, it says nothing about the return value (presumably rewritten XML, since there is no output schema) or how a stale/mismatched baselineSha256 is handled, which is the main behavioral risk here.

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 sentences, no filler, with the operation and its non-destructive guarantee front-loaded before the scope qualifier. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 four-required-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition is thinner than the complexity warrants. The crucial operational details — accepted property keys, expected response shape, and baseline-mismatch behavior — are absent, leaving the agent to infer them.

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 coverage is 0% across four required parameters, so the description carries the burden. It does add real meaning by constraining the free-form "properties" object to geometry and RGB color keys, but it leaves originalXml, baselineSha256 (evidently a concurrency/integrity guard) and the exact property-name vocabulary unexplained.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Offline scoped edit of one uniquely named native screen object") and bounds the mutation surface to geometry or RGB color. It is clearly distinct from apply/plan/export siblings by being an in-place single-object edit, though it never names which sibling to prefer for the same job.

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?

"Offline scoped edit" and "preserving all other native XML" imply the intended context (editing a supplied document rather than the live project), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. tia_edit_hmi_native / tia_edit_hmi_text guidance, and no stated prerequisites for obtaining originalXml or a valid baseline hash.

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