Reads POU metadata and section IDs, letting you fetch source separately to keep responses within size limits.
Read POU metadata and section IDs; fetch source with plc_read_section to bound response size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pou_id | Yes | ||
| 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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response is deliberately bounded to metadata and section IDs, which is useful context, but says nothing about the optional transaction_id or any error behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste: the scope comes first and the alternative tool is named second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 values need not be described, and the metadata-vs-source split is clear. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no mention of what transaction_id does, the definition leaves a real gap for a tool that participates in a transaction workflow.
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 0% across three parameters, and the description explains none of them. project_id, pou_id, and especially the optional transaction_id are left entirely undefined, so the description does not compensate for the schema 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 specific verb and resource ("Read POU metadata and section IDs") and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling plc_read_section, which handles source. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to plc_read_section when source is needed, which is the key usage decision for this tool. It does not state exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., whether a transaction is required), so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.