ucontrol-mcp

Ucontrol Read Asset

ucontrol_read_asset

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a single asset's data from uControl by supplying the asset definition and record identifier, with optional fields for location, tags, units, and context.

Instructions

uAsset API: read one asset by definition and record identifier.

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": {
      "definition": "<definition>",
      "record_identifier": "<record_identifier>"
    },
    "name": "ucontrol_read_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fields`	No	Comma-separated fields to return.
`tagInfo`	No
`unitInfo`	No
`definition`	Yes
`contextInfo`	No
`locationInfo`	No
`record_identifier`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'read one asset', which is already reflected in the schema's required record_identifier. No mention of response format or flag effects.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with purpose. No filler or redundancy, earning its place.

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?

Despite 7 parameters and no output schema, the description offers minimal context. It does not explain the boolean flags, return values, or usage nuances. The tool is simple in concept but the description leaves too much unspecified for the agent.

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 only 14% (fields property). The description names definition and record_identifier but provides no semantic explanation of these or the five boolean flags. With 7 parameters, the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 verb 'read', the resource 'asset', and the scope 'one asset by definition and record identifier'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ucontrol_read_assets, which reads multiple assets.

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 description implies use for reading a single asset, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. No guidance is provided on choosing between this and ucontrol_read_assets, making the usage partly implicit.

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