ignition-mcp

by jsgorana

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

perspective_bootstrap_project

Bootstraps a Perspective application project by mutating via REST, bridge, and scan in a single operation.

Instructions

Mutating, REST + bridge + scan. One-call working Perspective app.

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>"
    },
    "name": "perspective_bootstrap_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	No
`confirm`	No
`project`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

D1.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. 'Mutating' confirms side effects, but no details on what changes, prerequisites, or consequences. Terms like 'REST + bridge + scan' are technical and not behavioral.

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 (one sentence), but it is cryptic rather than clear. Conciseness should pair with clarity; here it omits essential information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the tool's basic purpose or behavior. It is a mutating tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and many siblings, yet the description provides almost no actionable context.

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 adds zero parameter explanations. Parameters 'project', 'title', and 'confirm' are left entirely undefined, forcing agents to guess their semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says 'Mutating, REST + bridge + scan. One-call working Perspective app.' It vaguely indicates mutation and technical components but fails to state a clear verb+resource (e.g., 'bootstraps a Perspective project'). It does not distinguish from siblings like project_create or perspective_upsert_view.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., project_create, project_import, perspective_upsert_view), agents have no basis for selection.

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