aras-plm-mcp

aras_add_property

Add a new property to an existing Aras ItemType by defining its name, data type, label, and length to extend the schema.

Instructions

Aggiunge una proprieta' a un ItemType esistente.

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": {
      "itemType": "<itemType>",
      "nome": "<nome>",
      "tipo": "<tipo>"
    },
    "name": "aras_add_property"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`nome`	Yes
`tipo`	Yes	string, text, integer, decimal, date, boolean, item, list
`itemType`	Yes
`etichetta`	No
`lunghezza`	No	Per le stringhe
`obbligatoria`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation of an existing ItemType, but it gives no details on side effects, required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, what happens if the property already exists, or what the tool returns.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise, but because it omits substantive guidance for several parameters it is not maximally useful.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is too incomplete. An agent would know that the tool adds a property, but not enough about correct parameter usage, valid values, constraints, or expected results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the tool description does not explain any parameters. The existing schema descriptions cover 'tipo' and 'lunghezza' partially, but 'nome', 'itemType', 'etichetta', and 'obbligatoria' are not semantically explained anywhere. The description does not compensate for this gap.

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 states a clear action ('Aggiunge'), a specific resource ('una proprieta'), and a clear target ('ItemType esistente'). It is distinguishable from the many sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with aras_create_item_type.

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?

The phrase 'a un ItemType esistente' implies the tool is for modifying an existing item type, not creating one. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusion or prerequisite information.

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

Deploy Server