Retrieve the library repositories a TwinCAT XAE project uses in priority order, including names and folders, and flag missing data rather than infer it.
The library repositories XAE uses, in priority order (name, folder). Where this XAE's Automation Interface does not give them, it says so — nothing is guessed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plc_project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.19Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results come back in priority order and, crucially, the tool reports absence rather than guessing when the Automation Interface does not expose the data. That no-fabrication guarantee is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.
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?
Two tight sentences with the returned data shape front-loaded; nothing is redundant. The second sentence is slightly indirect but earns its place by disclosing the no-guessing guarantee.
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, so the return structure needn't be explained, and the description covers ordering and the missing-data behavior. The only real omission is any hint about the plc_project_path parameter's role or default behavior.
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?
There is a single optional parameter (plc_project_path) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, so an agent cannot tell whether omitting it targets the active project or what path format is expected. With only one parameter the gap is tolerable but uncompensated.
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 ('library repositories XAE uses') and the shape of the result ('in priority order (name, folder)'). It does not name the sibling it differs from (xae_library_list, xae_library_installed, proj_libraries), so an agent must infer the distinction, but the verb+resource is concrete enough to select it.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the closely related siblings such as xae_library_list or xae_library_installed, which an agent would reasonably confuse with this tool. Usage is only implied by the description of what it returns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.