control-expert-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

import_xml

Import XML into an open project to add program logic, variables, or configuration. Supports overwrite, keep existing, or rename modes.

Instructions

Import Control Expert XML into the open project — the main way to write program logic and bulk content.

kind: 'section' (program logic, requires task), 'variables', 'dfb', 'ddt', 'configuration', or 'project' (generic project-level import of an exchange file). Provide the XML either inline via xml_content or as file_path. import_mode: 'overwrite' (default), 'keep_existing' or 'rename'.

Tip: export an existing object first (read_section / export_xml) and use its XML as the structural template — Control Expert validates the schema strictly.

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>"
    },
    "name": "import_xml"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`kind`	Yes
`xml_content`	No
`file_path`	No
`task`	No
`import_mode`	No	overwrite

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits like import modes (overwrite, keep_existing, rename) and strict schema validation. It could further detail side effects or permissions but covers key aspects.

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 fairly concise, front-loaded with purpose, and uses a list format for kinds. Minor redundancy exists but is acceptable for clarity.

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?

Covers kind, mode, and usage tip, but lacks return value or confirmation of success. No output schema exists, so description should hint at what the tool returns.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds comprehensive meaning for all parameters: kind enumerates allowed values, xml_content/file_path sourcing, task requirement for sections, and import_mode values. This fully compensates for schema gaps.

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 clearly states the tool imports Control Expert XML into the open project, listing specific kinds and import modes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like export_xml through explicit purpose and context.

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 provides clear context as the main way to write program logic and bulk content, and includes a tip to export first. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternative tools.

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

Deploy Server