ignition-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

perspective_page_config_get

Retrieve the configuration of a Perspective page for a given Ignition project. Use this read-only tool to inspect page settings.

Instructions

Read-only, bridge plane.

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_page_config_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Read-only' which implies no mutation, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the tool actually does with the bridge plane.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

While extremely concise at three words, the description is underspecified and lacks necessary information. Conciseness should not come at the expense of clarity and completeness.

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 presence of an output schema, the description could be leaner, but it still must explain the tool's purpose and parameters. The current description is too minimal to be considered complete for correct tool selection and invocation.

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%, meaning the parameter 'project' has no description in the schema. The description does not explain what 'project' refers to or how to specify it, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 'Read-only, bridge plane' vaguely indicates read-only access but does not explicitly state that the tool gets perspective page configuration. The term 'bridge plane' is ambiguous and does not clarify the tool's purpose relative to its name. It fails to differentiate from siblings like perspective_page_config_set.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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