WinProLadder MCP

by Syrup2718

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

generate_component_comments

Generate a separate WinProLadder component-comment import .txt.

Instructions

Generate a separate WinProLadder component-comment import .txt.

    Call this when the user explicitly requests 新增元件註解 or component comments.
    Each row has ref, comment and description. Output exactly follows the supplied sample:
    REF/COMMENT/DESCRIPTION columns, tabs, CRLF and CP950/Big5. Never overwrites a file.

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": {
      "output_name": "<output_name>",
      "entries": "<entries>"
    },
    "name": "generate_component_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entries`	Yes
`output_name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.0Oct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only but non-destructive local write operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it specifies exact output formatting (REF/COMMENT/DESCRIPTION, tabs, CRLF, CP950/Big5) and states 'Never overwrites a file.' It does not clarify what happens if the named file already exists or what is returned on success.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds relevant information. No wasted text.

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?

For a file-generating tool with no output schema, the description covers formatting and non-overwrite behavior well. However, it leaves the required output_name semantics and the success response or output location underspecified, which matters for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the entries row fields ('ref, comment and description') and output format, but it says nothing about the required output_name parameter, such as whether it is a filename, path, extension handling, or overwrite/conflict rules.

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 and resource: generating a WinProLadder component-comment import .txt. It also names the exact triggering request ('新增元件註解 or component comments'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from the LDR-oriented sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly says to call this when the user explicitly requests component comments, giving a clear usage context. It does not describe when not to use it or name any alternative, but no clear overlapping sibling exists.

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