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

control-expert-mcp

by apexsotjo-blip
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

remove_io_module

Remove an IO module from a specified slot in a PLC rack configuration. Use slot, rack, drop, and bus parameters to identify the module.

Instructions

Remove the module at a rack slot.

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": {
      "slot": "<slot>"
    },
    "name": "remove_io_module"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slotYes
rackNo
dropNo
busNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'remove', implying a destructive operation, but does not describe consequences, reversibility, or side effects on related hardware configurations. For a removal tool, this is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise, a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it omits essential context about parameters and behavior, making it under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It could be expanded with meaningful detail without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not clarify the addressing model (bus, drop, rack, slot) or any prerequisites for removal. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly with only this description.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It references 'rack slot' but does not explain the 'bus', 'drop', or 'rack' parameters, which are likely necessary to locate the exact module. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 verb 'remove' and the resource 'module at a rack slot', providing a specific action. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like replace_io_module or add_io_module, which also operate on modules at rack slots.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as replace_io_module or add_io_module. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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