Skip to main content
Glama
Svel26

Sigmatek LASAL MCP Server

by Svel26
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

create_class2_bootdisk

Destructive

Creates a CLASS 2 bootdisk or update stick for Sigmatek LASAL PLCs, bundling OS images, update scripts, Autoexec.lsl, VISUDesigner publish files, and MultiMaster station data.

Instructions

Create a CLASS 2 bootdisk (update stick): plain bootdisk or the full Update-Tool flavor with update script, Autoexec.lsl, LasalOS image, VISUDesigner publish folder and MultiMaster Stations.txt. Platform AUTO/ALL/ARM/X86.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoBootdisk flavor. Default: update_stick when any of os_file/visu_publish_folder/autoexec_file/add_autoexec/update_script is used, otherwise simple.
os_fileNoLasalOS image (.lbi) to include (update-stick mode).
lcp_pathNoAbsolute path to the .lcp file. Omit to use the currently selected project.
platformNoTarget architecture: AUTO (project target), ALL, ARM or X86. Default AUTO.AUTO
overwriteNoOverwrite existing bootdisk content. Default true.
timeout_sNoTimeout in seconds. Default 300.
lvd_runtimeNoWhen a VISUDesigner publish folder is set: also use its Runtime directory. Default true.
output_pathYesDirectory to write the bootdisk into (e.g. a prepared USB stick root).
add_autoexecNoPlace an autoexec.lsl into the destination directory that starts the update script (update-stick mode).
autoexec_fileNoPath of a regular Autoexec.lsl to place on the PLC (update-stick mode).
update_scriptNoUpdate-tool script flavor (update-stick mode): none, all (runs every update) or menu. Default none.none
all_lobs_in_oneNoWrite all .lob files into a single file.
visu_publish_folderNoVISUDesigner 'Publish' folder to bundle into the update (update-stick mode).
add_multimaster_stationsNoCopy the MultiMaster Stations.txt into the destination (update-stick mode). Default true.
use_active_connection_filesNoUse the project's active connection files (update-stick mode). Default true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.2

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals that this operation can destroy/overwrite data. The description adds useful context about what a bootdisk contains and that platform selection is supported, but it does not mention overwrite behavior, output location requirements, permissions, or other operational constraints beyond what the annotation and schema provide.

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 front-loaded with the core action, uses two tight sentences, and avoids unnecessary repetition. The flavor details are packed efficiently without burying the main purpose.

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?

Given 15 parameters, a destructive hint, and no output schema, the description is adequate at the purpose level but incomplete for usage context. It relies heavily on the schema for parameter details and does not explain prerequisites such as how the selected project or omitted lcp_path affects the operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 15 parameters thoroughly. The description adds only a high-level mention of platform values and update-stick contents, which is marginal beyond the detailed enum and parameter descriptions already present.

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 states a specific verb 'Create' and resource 'CLASS 2 bootdisk', and distinguishes the two output flavors (plain bootdisk vs. full Update-Tool). This lets an agent identify the tool as the bootdisk-creation operation among siblings like manage_class2 and deploy_all.

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?

The description explains what can be produced, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over related deployment or management tools.

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