studio5000-mcp-server

load_project

Parse a Studio 5000 L5X export and return a project summary, enabling queries of PLC tags, UDTs, routines, AOIs, and I/O modules.

Instructions

Parse an L5X file and return a project summary.

Args: l5x_path: Path to a .l5x file exported from Studio 5000.

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": "load_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read/parse operation but says nothing about side effects (does it load state into a session?), what happens on a malformed or unreadable file, or permission/format requirements beyond 'exported from Studio 5000'.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence with no filler, and the argument note is compact. The leftover Python 'Args:' docstring formatting is slightly untidy but not wasteful.

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 described, and the input is a single documented path. What is missing is the operational context an agent needs — that this is the prerequisite step for the sibling query tools and any state it establishes.

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% and the schema type is a bare string, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning — the value is a path to a .l5x file exported from Studio 5000 — but gives no detail on path form (absolute/relative) or expected file structure.

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 (parse) and resource (L5X file) plus the outcome (project summary), which is enough to tell it apart from the get_* query siblings. It does not explicitly say it differs from them in being the loader/entry point, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. Crucially, it never states the obvious workflow role — that this must be called before get_tags/get_udts/list_modules — nor any precondition or alternative.

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

Deploy Server