Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
control-expert-mcp

control-expert-mcp

by apexsotjo-blip
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

build_project

Compiles a Control Expert project incrementally or fully. Use to obtain build status and error details before transferring to a PLC or simulator.

Instructions

Build the project (incremental by default, full rebuild with rebuild_all=True). Returns the resulting build state and, when available, the Control Expert output window text with errors/warnings. A successful build is required before transferring to a PLC or simulator.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "build_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rebuild_allNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Describes return value (build state, output text) and default behavior. With no annotations, it covers key aspects but lacks details on side effects or permissions.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with parameter behavior, then return and usage context. Every sentence is informative.

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?

Covers main aspects: purpose, parameter, return values, prerequisite. Lacks output format details but sufficient for a simple tool with no output schema.

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?

Explains the single boolean parameter clearly: default false for incremental, true for full rebuild. Adds meaning beyond the schema which only provides name and type.

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?

Clearly states the tool builds a project (incremental or full rebuild). Mentions prerequisite for transferring, distinguishing it from analysis tools. However, no explicit comparison to sibling tools like analyze_project.

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?

Provides context: incremental by default, full rebuild on parameter, prerequisite for transfer. But no when-not-to-use or alternatives given.

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