Skip to main content
Glama
industrial-aiops

OT-AIops Energy

dnp3_integrity_poll

Read-only

Performs a DNP3 integrity poll to retrieve all static points from an outstation, grouped by type. Returns point count, values, quality, and timestamps for each point.

Instructions

[READ][risk=low] Class 0/1/2/3 integrity poll → the outstation's database.

Returns all static points grouped by measurement type (binary_input,
analog_input, counter, …).

Args:
    endpoint: Endpoint name from config (protocol 'dnp3').

Returns dict: {endpoint, outstation_address, point_count, by_type{},
    points:[{type, group, index, value, quality, timestamp}]}.

Example: dnp3_integrity_poll(endpoint="rtu2").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endpointNo
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that it is low risk and details the return dictionary structure, providing context beyond the annotation's safety profile.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the return structure, parameters, and an example. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the operation, parameter semantics, return format, and an example, leaving no significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has only one optional parameter with no description, but the description provides an Args section explaining 'endpoint' as the endpoint name from config and includes a usage example. This fully compensates for the 0% 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 tool performs a Class 0/1/2/3 integrity poll that returns all static points grouped by measurement type. It names the specific DNP3 operation and distinguishes it from siblings like dnp3_link_status or iec104_interrogate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool should be used when a complete read of DNP3 static data is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/industrial-aiops/industrial-aiops-energy'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server