Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ignition-mcp

ignition-mcp

by jsgorana
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

history_query

Queries historical tag data from Ignition. Specify paths, time range, aggregation, and return size to retrieve past tag values.

Instructions

Read-only, bridge plane. Query tag history.

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": {
      "paths": "<paths>",
      "start": "<start>"
    },
    "name": "history_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNo
pathsYes
startYes
aggregationNoAverage
return_sizeNo

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read-only', which indicates no side effects, but fails to disclose potential rate limits, authorization requirements, or behavior for large queries. This is insufficient.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is compact (three phrases) but lacks structure. It front-loads 'Read-only, bridge plane' which is cryptic. While concise, it sacrifices informative content for brevity.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has 5 parameters with no schema descriptions and an output schema present but unexplained, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of 'bridge plane', parameter usage, or return value structure.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (paths, start, end, aggregation, return_size). The agent receives no guidance on parameter format, allowed values, or semantics beyond the schema titles.

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 'Query tag history' with a specific verb and resource, and notes it is read-only. However, the term 'bridge plane' is domain-specific and not explained, slightly reducing clarity. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like history_providers or db_query, but the focus on 'tag history' provides some differentiation.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison to other tools such as history_providers or tag_read.

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