motionworks-iec-mcp-server

by KonnectSuite

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

get_routines

List POUs from a MotionWorks IEC project file or directory, optionally filtered by POU name.

Instructions

List POUs (alias for get_pous, for familiarity with studio5000).

Args: path: Project file or directory. program: Filter by POU name.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "get_routines"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`program`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says 'List', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any other behaviors such as output format, pagination, error conditions, or performance characteristics. It is too minimal to inform the agent of important behavioral traits.

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 very short and front-loaded with the primary action. It efficiently states the purpose and then lists arguments without fluff. It is well-structured for a simple tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential action and parameters. However, it omits any context about return value structure, usage scenarios, or constraints beyond the basic filter. It is adequate but not thorough.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief meanings for both parameters: 'path' as project file or directory, and 'program' as filter by POU name. This adds value beyond the schema's bare types, but lacks detail on expected formats or edge cases.

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 'List POUs', specifying the action and resource. It also explicitly mentions it's an alias for get_pous, which clarifies its relationship to a sibling, even though it doesn't differentiate from that sibling. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states it's an alias for get_pous, which implies interchangeability but doesn't provide conditions for selection or mention when not to use it. Sibling tools like get_pou or get_routine are not addressed.

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