Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ignition-mcp

ignition-mcp

by jsgorana
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

db_run_named_query

Run a saved named query from an Ignition project with optional parameters for read-only database access.

Instructions

Read-only by default, bridge plane. Runs a project Named Query.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "query_path": "<query_path>"
    },
    "name": "db_run_named_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectYes
parametersNo
query_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description lacks crucial behavioral details: 'Read-only by default' is ambiguous (suggests possible write capability), and 'bridge plane' is unexplained jargon. No information about permissions, error cases, or output format (though output schema exists).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely short but at the cost of omitting essential information. The description is under-specified, leaving key details about parameters and usage unstated.

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?

Given the presence of a sibling tool set and 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It does not explain what a Named Query is, how parameters are used, or the significance of 'bridge plane'.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the three parameters (project, parameters, query_path). It merely mentions 'project Named Query' without explaining any parameter.

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 the action 'Runs a project Named Query' and specifies the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like db_query, which might also run queries.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like db_query, history_query, or other query tools. The phrase 'Read-only by default' hints at safety but does not provide explicit usage context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools