Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
node-opcua-modeler-mcp-server

node-opcua-modeler-mcp-server

Official
by node-opcua
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_namespaces

List all well-known OPC UA companion spec namespace aliases with their full names, URIs, and dependencies to discover available namespaces for industrial modeling.

Instructions

List all well-known OPC UA companion spec namespace aliases with their full names, URIs, and dependencies. Use this to discover what namespaces are available.

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": "list_namespaces"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Describes the operation as listing 'well-known' namespaces, implying a read-only, simple lookup. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It adequately conveys the behavior, though it could explicitly state it's non-destructive and fast.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (names, URIs, dependencies). Could be improved by specifying the output format (e.g., list of objects), but it's sufficient for a simple list tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

No parameters, so parameter documentation is trivially complete. Per guidelines, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. Description adds no parameter info but none is needed.

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?

Clearly states verb 'List', resource 'well-known OPC UA companion spec namespace aliases', and specifies returned data: full names, URIs, dependencies. Also includes usage hint 'discover what namespaces are available'. Distinguishes from sibling tools which are for modeling, validating, and searching.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides usage context 'Use this to discover what namespaces are available'. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but siblings don't overlap in function, so the guidance is sufficient.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools