WinProLadder MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

generate_ldr

Compile caller-supplied custom Ladder IR into an actual .ldr file and return SHA-256, a binary resource link, and verification warnings without overwriting existing files.

Instructions

Compile caller-supplied custom Ladder IR to an actual .ldr file.

    Use generate_control_ldr for common controls and generate_sequence_ldr for ordered steps.
    Returns SHA-256, a binary resource link and verification warnings. Never overwrites files.

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>",
      "ladder": "<ladder>",
      "io_contract": "<io_contract>"
    },
    "name": "generate_ldr"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ladder`	Yes
`acceptance`	No
`io_contract`	Yes
`output_name`	Yes
`strict_writers`	No
`require_acceptance`	No

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 say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that output includes SHA-256, a binary resource link and verification warnings, and that files are never overwritten. It does not explain strict_writers or require_acceptance effects, but key side-effect and return behavior are disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the action, alternative routing, and return/safety behavior; no redundant wording. Blank-line formatting is slightly loose but not costly.

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 large Ladder IR schema and six top-level parameters, the description covers purpose, alternatives, return artifacts and non-overwrite behavior. It leaves important invocation details—especially acceptance and strict-writer controls—undocumented, so it is adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

The description identifies 'caller-supplied custom Ladder IR' as the input and '.ldr file' as output, but it does not name or explain top-level parameters like io_contract, acceptance, strict_writers, or require_acceptance. With 0% schema description coverage at the top level, it does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Compile ... custom Ladder IR to ... .ldr file') and distinguishes custom IR from common-control and ordered-step siblings. An agent can tell what this tool generates without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes common controls to generate_control_ldr and ordered steps to generate_sequence_ldr, leaving custom IR as this tool's use case. It does not state when not to use it or prerequisites such as validation/acceptance.

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