Skip to main content
Glama
Disectron

twincat-mcp

by Disectron
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

scope_record

Idempotent

Drive a Scope configuration open in XAE (Automation Interface IMeasurementScope): action = start | stop | disconnect (Scope discards what it holds and is back in Config — needed before it records again; asks for the user's confirmation…

Instructions

Drive a Scope configuration open in XAE (Automation Interface IMeasurementScope): action = start | stop | disconnect (Scope discards what it holds and is back in Config — needed before it records again; asks for the user's confirmation unless what it holds is a recording the plugin saved) | new (disconnect, then start) | save (SaveSVD → /Scope Recordings/-.svdx, or path=.svdx; the .csv exported from that file with Beckhoff's export tool — XAE's ExportCSV only without it, flagged, and never over an existing CSV; XAE's ExportCSV of the in-memory data beside it, .xae.csv, row counts compared in cross_check; the Scope View log's new ERROR / FATAL lines). scope = its name when several are open. Affects only the Scope recording, not the PLC. One Scope, one owner (N189): while a recording's Scope part has Scope, its rec_stop / rec_delete stop and save it — start / stop / save / disconnect / new here are refused; a Scope recording started here owns Scope until action='stop'.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo
scopeNo
actionYes
confirm_tokenNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.18
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm_token
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Confirm Token"
+}
  2. Addedv0.8.12

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description contains rich side-effect detail, but it contradicts the annotations. idempotentHint=true conflicts with save producing timestamped .svdx files and new restarting the recording, and destructiveHint=false conflicts with disconnect discarding what the Scope holds unless it was previously saved. That is an annotation contradiction, so this dimension must score 1.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and action list are front-loaded, and much of the length is justified by the tool's complexity. However, the save behavior is written as a dense semicolon-and-parenthesis run-on, making the definition harder to parse than necessary.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a complex stateful Scope tool with an output schema, the description covers ownership, refusal conditions, save artifacts, and PLC isolation well. The main gaps are confirm_token semantics and reconciliation with the annotations, which prevent a 5.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter semantics. It defines action values well, explains scope selection by name, and mentions path=<file>.svdx for save, but it never explains confirm_token. It compensates substantially but incompletely.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Drive a Scope configuration open in XAE') and enumerates the action modes start/stop/disconnect/new/save. It also states the tool affects only the Scope recording, not the PLC. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling scope tools such as scope_status, scope_list, or scope_export.

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?

Usage is mostly explicit: disconnect is needed before recording again, ownership rules refuse start/stop/save/disconnect/new while another recording owns Scope, and rec_stop/rec_delete are named as the alternative stop/save path in that case. It lacks an explicit comparison with scope_export/status/list, so it falls short of a 5.

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