Retrieve an Add-On Instruction definition, including parameters and internal logic, from a Rockwell/Allen-Bradley L5X file by specifying the AOI name.
Get an Add-On Instruction definition with parameters and internal logic.
Args: l5x_path: Path to a .l5x file. aoi_name: AOI name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| aoi_name | Yes | ||
| l5x_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the result (definition, parameters, internal logic). However it says nothing about failure modes (missing file, unknown AOI name), permissions, or whether the file is read from disk versus an already-loaded project.
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 lead sentence is front-loaded and free of padding. The Args block largely duplicates the input schema, which is mild waste but not enough to hurt readability.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple two-required-parameter read. What is missing is the load-state prerequisite and the list-vs-single relationship to get_aois, leaving the agent to guess the correct call sequence.
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%, so the description must compensate. The Args section only restates the parameter names: 'l5x_path: Path to a .l5x file' adds the file type, but 'aoi_name: AOI name' is pure tautology, and neither explains format, expected location, or case sensitivity.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get an Add-On Instruction definition') and adds scope detail ('with parameters and internal logic'). It reasonably distinguishes the single-AOI fetch from the sibling get_aois, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus get_aois, get_routine, or search_logic. There is no mention of prerequisites such as whether the .l5x must be loaded first (load_project exists as a sibling), so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.