Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ABB RobotStudio MCP Server

ABB RobotStudio MCP Server

by LiskinLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

rs_read_config

Reads ABB robot controller configuration files (SYS.cfg, EIO.cfg, SIO.cfg, MOC.cfg) to retrieve system, I/O, and motion settings.

Instructions

Read controller config file (SYS.cfg, EIO.cfg, SIO.cfg, MOC.cfg)

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "rs_read_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYese.g. 'SIO.cfg'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. The description only states 'Read', implying non-destructive behavior. No details about error handling (e.g., if file not found), permissions, or side effects. For a simple read tool, this is acceptable but minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with no superfluous words. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Every element earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

A simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately identifies the resource and valid file names. Misses a note that files are on the controller, but that is implied by 'controller config file'.

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 has 100% coverage with a description example ('e.g. 'SIO.cfg''). The tool description adds the set of valid config file names (SYS.cfg, EIO.cfg, SIO.cfg, MOC.cfg), providing useful context beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly specifies the verb ('Read'), the resource ('controller config file'), and lists the specific config files (SYS.cfg, EIO.cfg, SIO.cfg, MOC.cfg). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rs_read_module or rs_read_variable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit instructions on when to use versus alternatives. However, the sibling list includes rs_write_config, implying the read counterpart. Still, lacks guidance on when to choose this over other read tools (e.g., rs_read_module).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools