studio5000-mcp-server

get_routines

List routines in an L5X project with type and size info, optionally filtered by program name.

Instructions

List routines in an L5X project with type and size info.

Args: l5x_path: Path to a .l5x file. program: Filter by program name. Empty returns routines from all programs.

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": {
      "l5x_path": "<l5x_path>"
    },
    "name": "get_routines"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`program`	No
`l5x_path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List routines ... with type and size info' implies a read-only enumeration and hints at the returned content, but it does not state that the operation is non-mutating, whether the file is read from disk, or any performance/large-project caveats.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then a compact Args block limited to the two parameters. No filler sentences, though the Args duplication of the schema adds little formatting value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are documented. What is missing is differentiation from the sibling get_routine and any note on project/file prerequisites, leaving an agent to infer the list-vs-single choice.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: l5x_path is described as the path to a .l5x file and program is described as a name filter whose empty value returns routines across all programs — the latter adds meaning beyond the bare schema default.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List routines in an L5X project') plus the content returned ('type and size info'). It is distinguishable from the singular get_routine by the plural 'List', but the description never explicitly contrasts the two 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_routine (single routine), get_udts, or get_tags. The only conditional behavior given is the 'program' empty-string filter, which is parameter behavior rather than usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server