Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ABB RobotStudio MCP Server

ABB RobotStudio MCP Server

by LiskinLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

rs_write_module

Writes RAPID module source code directly into a running ABB robot controller, enabling dynamic program updates without stopping production.

Instructions

Write RAPID module source code into running controller (SDK)

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": {
      "task": "<task>",
      "module": "<module>",
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "rs_write_module"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYes
moduleYes
codeYesFull RAPID code (MODULE ... ENDMODULE)
replaceNoReplace existing modules (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

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 full burden. It indicates a write operation but does not disclose overwrite behavior, mastership requirements, or error handling. The replace parameter is only documented in the schema, not in the description.

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?

Single sentence with 9 words, efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, it sacrifices detail that could be included without adding length.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks critical context such as the role of the task parameter, implications of replace, and expected behavior. Incomplete for reliable agent use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Description does not mention any parameters. Schema coverage is 50% (descriptions only for code and replace), but the description adds no meaning 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?

Description clearly states 'Write RAPID module source code into running controller (SDK)', with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like rs_read_module (read) and rs_write_config (write config).

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 tool vs alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions for use. Siblings exist but no comparative cues are provided.

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