List programs, functions, and function blocks in a Sysmac Studio project with pagination, returning IDs required for read and edit operations.
List programs, functions and function blocks. Use returned IDs for reads and edits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum items, 1–200. | |
| offset | No | Zero-based offset from the previous page. | |
| project_id | Yes | ||
| transaction_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the ID-reuse note; it says nothing about project scoping, paging behavior, or how transaction_id affects visibility, which is the kind of context that would earn a higher score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope, with no redundant or filler wording. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. However, for a tool with an unexplained transaction_id parameter and project-scoped listing, the description leaves the agent unsure whether a transaction context is needed to see uncommitted POUs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%: limit and offset are documented in the schema, but project_id and transaction_id have no descriptions in either place. The description does not explain that project_id selects the target project or what transaction_id means for a read, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb ("List") and names the concrete resource types (programs, functions, function blocks), which maps to a POU listing distinct from siblings like plc_list_variables or plc_list_data_types. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"Use returned IDs for reads and edits" gives downstream workflow context but never states when to choose this over plc_list_variables, plc_list_data_types, or plc_find_references, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the name and resource list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.