Find which HMI files or controls bind to a PLC symbol by matching the symbol path, so you can trace and audit TwinCAT HMI connections.
Which HMI files/controls bind a PLC symbol (fnmatch on the symbol path).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| pattern | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that matching uses fnmatch on the symbol path. It does not mention limit or pagination behavior, but a 3 is appropriate with safety already covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a lookup tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so return values need not be explained. However, for a three-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate and provides no routing among many HMI/project siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for all three parameters. The description hints that pattern uses fnmatch against the symbol path, but leaves kind and limit completely undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific resource (HMI files/controls) and relation (bind a PLC symbol), making the query identifiable. However, it does not distinguish itself from HMI siblings such as hmi_scan or hmi_vs_runtime.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The interrogative phrasing implies you use it to find bindings, but there are no conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.