WinProLadder MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

inspect_ldr

Read-only

Examine an existing .ldr file's binary container to report framing, record offsets, raw payload bytes, and stored or calculated CRC evidence without decoding ladder logic.

Instructions

Inspect the binary container of one existing .ldr file without decoding its logic.

    Use this for framing, record offsets, raw payload bytes and stored/calculated CRC evidence.
    It reads one workspace-scoped file and returns metadata only; it never writes or connects to
    a PLC. Use read_ldr for decoded networks or analyze_ldr for device reads, writes and
    meaning.
    Invalid framing or file constraints return an error rather than partial interpretation.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_ldr"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Existing .ldr path that must resolve inside the configured workspace.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.1Nov 11, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / path / description
```
Added value: +"Existing .ldr path that must resolve inside the configured workspace."
```
First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds substantive behavior: metadata-only return, no PLC connection, single workspace-scoped file, and an all-or-nothing failure mode where invalid framing returns an error rather than partial interpretation. That error semantics is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core purpose and the read-only framing front-loaded before the sibling routing. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations already cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool the remaining needs — scope, alternatives, failure behavior — are all addressed, leaving no gap an agent would have to guess at.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of a 'workspace-scoped file' restates the constraint already present in the schema's path description ('must resolve inside the configured workspace') rather than adding format or resolution detail.

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 names a specific verb (inspect) and a precisely scoped resource (the binary container of one existing .ldr file), and immediately clarifies the negative scope: 'without decoding its logic'. It then contrasts itself with read_ldr (decoded networks) and analyze_ldr (device reads/writes/meaning), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

It states exactly when to reach for this tool ('framing, record offsets, raw payload bytes and stored/calculated CRC evidence') and explicitly routes the agent elsewhere for decoded or semantic work. The alternative tools are named with the conditions that select them, leaving nothing to inference.

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