mcp-snap7

by daedalus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

get_protection

Retrieve the protection level of a Siemens PLC. Returns a dictionary with protection status information.

Instructions

Get PLC protection level.

Returns: Dictionary containing protection level info

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": "get_protection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It states 'Get PLC protection level' implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, whether authentication is required, or what side effects (if any) occur. The description is too terse to ensure safe agent behavior.

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 very short (two sentences), containing only essential information. There is no unnecessary verbiage, but it lacks structure such as bullet points or clear separation of behavior and returns. It is concise but minimally formatted.

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?

Given the zero parameters and existence of an output schema, the description covers the bare basics. However, it does not address when to use this tool among 20+ sibling tools, nor does it clarify the meaning of 'protection level.' For a simple tool, it is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The baseline score for zero parameters is 4, as the schema already conveys all necessary information.

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 'Get PLC protection level' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_cpu_info or get_cpu_state that address different aspects of the PLC. However, it does not explain what a 'protection level' is, which could be ambiguous for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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 get_cpu_info or get_cpu_state. The description lacks any conditional logic, prerequisites, or examples of appropriate usage contexts.

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