Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
thingworx-mcp

thingworx-mcp

by NoBanks
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

search_things

Find Things in ThingWorx by free-text matching names and descriptions when the exact name is unknown.

Instructions

Search the ThingWorx model by free-text expression matched against Thing names + descriptions. Returns up to max_items results. Used when the agent does not know the exact Thing name (e.g. 'find all conveyor things in Line 4').

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": {
      "search_expression": "<search_expression>"
    },
    "name": "search_things"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_itemsNoMax results (default 50)
search_expressionYesFree-text search expression

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions results are limited by max_items, suggesting it returns a subset. However, it does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation or describe any side effects. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The example is concise and helpful. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns (up to max_items results), and when to use it. It lacks details on the return format, but that is acceptable for a simple search tool.

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, so the description adds value by explaining the search is against 'Thing names + descriptions', which is not in the schema. It also reinforces that max_items caps results. This provides 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 states the tool searches by free-text expression against Thing names and descriptions. It distinguishes from siblings like get_thing (exact name) and list_things (exhaustive), providing a specific verb and resource.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells when to use: when the agent does not know the exact Thing name. Includes an example ('find all conveyor things in Line 4') that clarifies the context.

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