Skip to main content
Glama
agenticcontrolio

TwinCAT Validator MCP Server

suggest_fixes

Generate prioritized fix recommendations from TwinCAT 3 XML validation results to resolve code quality and IEC 61131-3 compliance issues.

Instructions

Generate prioritized fix recommendations from validation results.

Args: validation_result: JSON string from validate_file()

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
validation_resultYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The core logic for the suggest_fixes tool. It takes a validation result string, parses it, and generates prioritized fix recommendations.
    def suggest_fixes(validation_result: str) -> str:
        """Generate prioritized fix recommendations from validation results.
    
        Args:
            validation_result: JSON string from validate_file()
        """
        _t0 = time.monotonic()
        try:
            result = json.loads(validation_result)
    
            if not result.get("success"):
                return _tool_error("Invalid validation result provided", start_time=_t0)
    
            issues = result.get("issues", [])
    
            fixes = []
            auto_fixable = 0
            manual_required = 0
    
            for issue in issues:
                priority = (
                    "high"
                    if issue["type"] == "error"
                    else "medium" if issue["type"] == "warning" else "low"
                )
                fix_type = "auto" if issue["auto_fixable"] else "manual"
    
                if fix_type == "auto":
                    auto_fixable += 1
                else:
                    manual_required += 1
    
                if fix_type == "auto":
                    effort = "< 1 second (automatic)"
                elif issue["category"] in ["GUID", "XML"]:
                    effort = "5-10 minutes (requires regeneration)"
                elif issue["category"] in ["Naming", "Order"]:
                    effort = "2-5 minutes (refactoring)"
                else:
                    effort = "1-2 minutes (simple edit)"
    
                fix_suggestion = {
                    "priority": priority,
                    "type": fix_type,
                    "category": issue["category"],
                    "issue": issue["message"],
                    "solution": issue.get("fix_suggestion", "Manual correction required"),
                    "code_example": None,
                    "estimated_effort": effort,
                }
    
                fixes.append(fix_suggestion)
    
            priority_order = {"high": 0, "medium": 1, "low": 2}
            fixes.sort(key=lambda x: priority_order[x["priority"]])
    
            result = {
                "success": True,
                "fixes": fixes,
                "auto_fixable_count": auto_fixable,
                "manual_fixes_required": manual_required,
            }
    
            return _with_meta(result, _t0)
    
        except json.JSONDecodeError:
            return _tool_error("Invalid JSON in validation_result", start_time=_t0)
        except Exception as e:
            return _tool_error(str(e), start_time=_t0)
  • The registration of the suggest_fixes tool within the MCP server.
    suggest_fixes = _get_tool_fn("suggest_fixes")
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the behavioral trait that recommendations are 'prioritized' (ranked by importance). However, it omits disclosure of safety properties (read-only vs destructive), idempotency, or side effects, though the existence of an output_schema reduces the need to describe return values.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is justified given the schema's lack of descriptions. The structure mixes narrative and docstring styles, which is functional but slightly less integrated than ideal.

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 the tool has only one parameter, has an output_schema (covering return values), and the description establishes the workflow link to 'validate_file()', the definition is sufficiently complete. The description adequately compensates for the schema coverage gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates effectively by specifying that 'validation_result' is a 'JSON string from validate_file()'. This provides critical semantic context (format and provenance) that the schema lacks, though it could further clarify the expected structure of the JSON content.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool 'Generate[s] prioritized fix recommendations from validation results', specifying the verb (generate), output (recommendations), and input source (validation results). The term 'prioritized' adds specificity, and the purpose distinguishes it from sibling 'autofix_*' tools by implying suggestion rather than application.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The Args section mentions the input comes from 'validate_file()', implying a workflow sequence (validate → suggest). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'autofix_file' or 'autofix_batch' (i.e., when manual review is preferred over automatic fixing).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/agenticcontrolio/twincat-validator-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server