ignition-mcp

by jsgorana

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

project_export

Export an Ignition project as a zip file for backup or transfer. Specify the project name and optionally a save path.

Instructions

Read-only, REST plane. Export a project zip.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "project_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`save_to`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Says 'Read-only, REST plane', indicating safety, but does not disclose behavioral traits like where the zip is saved, size limits, or impact on system.

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?

Extremely concise with one sentence, but omits essential details. The brevity sacrifices utility.

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 no parameter descriptions and no output schema visible, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters and an implied response.

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 coverage is 0%, yet description provides no explanation for the 'name' and 'save_to' parameters. Agent must infer their meaning.

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 states 'Export a project zip', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like project_get or project_create.

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. Among siblings like project_get, project_list, project_import, there is no context for selection.

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