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

control-expert-mcp

by apexsotjo-blip
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_network_ip

Set the static IP address, subnet mask, and gateway for a logical Ethernet network in a PLC project.

Instructions

Set the static IP configuration of a logical Ethernet network.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "ip_address": "<ip_address>",
      "subnet_mask": "<subnet_mask>",
      "gateway": "<gateway>"
    },
    "name": "set_network_ip"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
ip_addressYes
subnet_maskYes
gatewayYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation but does not mention overwrite behavior, validation, prerequisites, persistence, or side effects.

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 a single clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it sacrifices useful context because it is so short.

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?

With four required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, one sentence is insufficient for reliable invocation. Key details about network identification, address formats, and side effects are missing.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The format of ip_address, subnet_mask, and gateway, as well as what 'name' refers to, is left entirely to inference.

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 action and target: setting the static IP configuration of a logical Ethernet network. The phrase 'logical Ethernet network' helps differentiate from related networking tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as configure_cpu_ethernet or set_dtm_address. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are given beyond the basic action.

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