ignition-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

tag_browse

Browse tags and folders in a read-only manner by specifying provider, path, and depth to retrieve tag hierarchy for monitoring.

Instructions

Read-only, bridge plane. Browse tags/folders.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tag_browse"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`path`	No
`depth`	No
`provider`	No	default

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

Behavior3/5

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

The description states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like authorization needs or rate limits. The output schema covers return value structure.

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 very short (two sentences), which is concise, but the phrase 'bridge plane' adds jargon without clarity. It is front-loaded with behavior, but at the cost of missing essential parameter and usage details.

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?

Given 3 parameters with no schema descriptions and no parameter explanations in the description, the tool definition is incomplete. The output schema exists but doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter semantics or usage 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%, meaning the description must explain parameters, but it provides none. The parameters 'path', 'depth', and 'provider' are left undefined, forcing the agent to guess their meaning.

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 states 'Browse tags/folders', a specific verb+resource, and adds 'Read-only' to clarify the operation type. This distinguishes it from write siblings like tag_create and tag_write, though 'bridge plane' is ambiguous jargon.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies it's for browsing rather than reading specific tags (tag_read), but does not clarify the distinction or mention alternatives.

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