ignition-mcp-server

get_udt

Retrieve User Defined Type (UDT) definitions with member details from an Ignition project or .zip export. Specify a UDT name for one type or omit to get all.

Instructions

Get UDT definition(s) with member details.

Args: project_path: Path to Ignition project directory or .zip export. udt_name: Optional UDT name. If empty, returns all UDTs.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_udt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`udt_name`	No
`project_path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the operation as a read (get) and explains optional parameter behavior, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or rate limits. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

The description is concise, with a one-line summary followed by structured Args. No unnecessary information. Could be slightly more organized (e.g., bullet points), but no waste.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return values. It explains both parameters clearly. For a simple get tool, this is sufficient, though it lacks any cross-referencing or usage notes.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: project_path is 'Path to Ignition project directory or .zip export' and udt_name is 'Optional UDT name. If empty, returns all UDTs.' This adds significant value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 'Get UDT definition(s) with member details,' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from list_udts by implying detailed output, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides parameter behavior (e.g., empty udt_name returns all UDTs), but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_udts. No exclusions or context for selection are given.

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

Deploy Server