Skip to main content
Glama
Edge-JB
by Edge-JB

plc_project

Create, import, export, and manage PLC projects with boot configuration and online runtime control for TwinCAT automation systems.

Instructions

PLC (IEC) project lifecycle on the open solution. Tree paths use ^ separators; the PLC ROOT node is TIPC^, the nested project INSTANCE node is TIPC^^ Project. NODE MATTERS: ITcPlcProject (boot flags / generate_boot) is on the ROOT; ITcPlcIECProject* (plcopen_export/import / save_as_library) is on the INSTANCE node. Actions: create_from_template (name, template, before?, save?) — new PLC project from a stock template; open (name, file=.plcproj/.tpzip, subType 0 copy/1 move/2 use-in-place, before?, save?) — import an existing project; info (treePath? default first under TIPC) — read identity (nestedProjectName/instanceName/childCount); set_boot_flags (treePath? = ROOT, autostart?, tmcFileCopy?) — config-only boot flags; plcopen_export (file, treePath? = INSTANCE, selection?) — write PLCopen XML; plcopen_import (file, treePath? = INSTANCE, options 0 NONE/1 RENAME/2 REPLACE/3 SKIP, selection?, folderStructure? default true, save?) — import PLCopen XML; save_as_library (file, treePath? = INSTANCE, install? default false — install:true mutates the local library repository) — save project as .library. GUARDED (live runtime/target writes), require confirm="ALLOW_PLC_DOWNLOAD" and default to no-op: generate_boot_project (treePath? = ROOT, autostart? default true) — generates the boot project to the target boot dir (restart runtime to load); online (command login/logout/start/stop/reset_cold/reset_origin, treePath? — changes live online/runtime state; the ConsumeXml envelope is UNVERIFIED on this build and surfaces GetLastXmlError verbatim, reset_* need a prior login, build>=4010). Safety projects are deliberately out of scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNo
nameNo
saveNo
actionYes
beforeNoinsert before this sibling PLC project
commandNo
confirmNo
installNo
optionsNo
subTypeNo
templateNo
treePathNo
autostartNo
selectionNo
tmcFileCopyNo
folderStructureNo
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: guarded operations (require confirm), default no-op for generate_boot_project, mutation for install:true, live runtime impact of online commands, and out-of-scope safety projects. It also notes an unverified ConsumeXml envelope. This is comprehensive.

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 description is a single, dense paragraph that is quite long. While it contains valuable information, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections) and is not front-loaded effectively for scanning. Each sentence carries weight, but overall it is not concise.

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?

Given the complexity (16 parameters, 9 actions) and absence of output schema, the description covers most aspects: all actions, parameter defaults, node context, guarded operations, and edge cases. Missing details include the exact return values for the info action, but overall it is quite complete.

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?

The input schema has only 6% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining parameters in context of each action, e.g., 'create_from_template (name, template, before?, save?)'. It also clarifies treePath semantics. However, some parameters like 'selection' for plcopen_export/import are not fully explained.

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 clearly states that the tool handles PLC project lifecycle actions, listing specific actions like create_from_template, open, info, etc. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like plc_library or plc_pou, but the breadth of actions and the context of project lifecycle make the purpose reasonably clear.

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 description provides detailed per-action usage guidelines, including required parameters, defaults (e.g., treePath defaults), and prerequisites (e.g., login before reset_*). However, it lacks an overall statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and the information is dense and could be more scannable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Edge-JB/TwinCAT-XAE-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server