ignition-mcp

by jsgorana

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

project_import

Import a project zip file into the Ignition platform, specifying the project name and zip file path.

Instructions

Mutating, REST plane. Import a project zip as project .

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>",
      "zip_path": "<zip_path>"
    },
    "name": "project_import"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`confirm`	No
`zip_path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. Only 'Mutating' hints at state change, but lacks details on overwrite behavior, authorization needs, side effects (e.g., on existing projects with same name), or error conditions.

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?

Very short and front-loaded ('Mutating, REST plane.'), but the single sentence for the main action is adequate. Could be considered under-specified rather than concisely complete.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits return value details. With many sibling tools and no differentiation, the description fails to provide complete context for correct tool selection and use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and description only vaguely relates 'name' parameter ('project <name>'). Other parameters (zip_path, confirm) are not explained. No enums or additional semantics beyond property names.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'import' and the resource 'project zip as project <name>', distinguishing it from sibling tools like project_export and project_create. The additional context 'Mutating, REST plane' reinforces purpose.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., project_create, project_scan). No context about prerequisites, conflicts, or when not to use it. Given many sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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