Retrieve all scripts in an Ignition project with their scope by supplying the project directory or .zip export path. Use it to audit or navigate project automation code.
List all scripts in an Ignition project with their scope.
Args: project_path: Path to Ignition project directory or .zip export.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'list all scripts... with their scope,' but does not disclose behaviors like reading a directory, required permissions, error handling, or performance implications. This is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for the tool's purpose, one for the parameter. It front-loads the action and resource, with no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (1 parameter) and presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is adequate. It specifies that output includes script names and scopes. Could mention more about output structure, but not required due to output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 to the 'project_path' parameter: 'Path to Ignition project directory or .zip export.' This clarifies the expected input format, which is not evident from the bare schema type string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all scripts in an Ignition project with their scope.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('scripts'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_script' (singular) and 'execute_script' (execution).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_script' or 'execute_script'. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.