ignition-mcp-server

get_view

Retrieve a Perspective view's component tree, bindings, and structure by project and view path to inspect and analyze Ignition view layouts.

Instructions

Get a Perspective view's component tree, bindings, and structure.

Args: project_path: Path to Ignition project directory or .zip export. view_path: View path (e.g. "Overview" or "Screens/MotorDetail").

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>",
      "view_path": "<view_path>"
    },
    "name": "get_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view_path`	Yes
`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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, side effects, permissions, or error conditions like missing view or invalid path.

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?

The description is concise: one line for the main purpose followed by two structured parameter descriptions. No unnecessary text, and all information is front-loaded.

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 tool has only 2 required parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the inputs well. However, it lacks information on error behavior or prerequisites (e.g., does the view need to exist?), but these are acceptable gaps for a simple getter.

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 compensates by explaining both parameters: 'project_path' as path to Ignition project directory or .zip, and 'view_path' with examples like 'Overview'. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Perspective view's component tree, bindings, and structure'. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_views' by focusing on details of a specific view, not listing.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_views' or 'get_tags'. It only implies usage for retrieving a specific view's internal structure.

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

Deploy Server