Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ignition-mcp-server

ignition-mcp-server

by KonnectSuite
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_named_query

Retrieve a named query's SQL, parameters, database connection, and type from an Ignition project directory or .zip export.

Instructions

Get a named query's SQL, parameters, database connection, and type.

Args: project_path: Path to Ignition project directory or .zip export. query_name: Named query name (from list_named_queries output).

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": {
      "project_path": "<project_path>",
      "query_name": "<query_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_named_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
query_nameYes
project_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, or limitations beyond stating what is retrieved. It doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences plus a clear Args list, front-loaded with the main purpose. No extraneous information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are documented. The description covers both parameters adequately and explains the tool's purpose. Slight lack of behavioral details prevents a 5.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for both parameters: project_path (path to project directory or .zip) and query_name (from list_named_queries output). This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get a named query's SQL, parameters, database connection, and type' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_named_queries (which lists names only) and other get_* tools.

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 description implies usage after list_named_queries by referencing its output, but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance.

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