ignition-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

alarm_journal

Query alarm journal entries within a specified time range. Filter by alarm states, source, and limit results for efficient troubleshooting.

Instructions

Read-only, bridge plane. Query the alarm journal over a time range.

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": {
      "start": "<start>"
    },
    "name": "alarm_journal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`end`	No
`limit`	No
`start`	Yes
`states`	No
`source_filter`	No	*

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only 'Read-only' is disclosed, but lacks details on authorization, rate limits, or what gets returned (output schema exists but not referenced). Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key info (read-only, bridge, query). Efficient, but could include more detail without losing conciseness.

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?

With 5 parameters (1 required), no annotations, and only a terse description, the tool lacks sufficient context for an agent to understand filtering options or expected output. Output schema exists but is not leveraged in description.

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 0%. Description only mentions 'time range' relating to start/end params, but does not explain limit, states, source_filter. Adds little meaning beyond parameter names.

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?

Description clearly states verb (query), resource (alarm journal), and scope (bridge plane, time range). Distinguishes from siblings like alarm_acknowledge and alarm_status which are different operations.

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?

Indicates read-only usage on bridge plane, implying it's for querying without modifications. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives like alarm_status or db_query.

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