Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-1c-local-bridge

mcp-1c-local-bridge

by ntappw
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

ping

Checks connectivity to an open 1C session via the local bridge and returns the 1C server time and session number. Use session and timeout to verify the bridge responds.

Instructions

Проверка связи: обработка забирает команду и делает вызов сервера 1С (время сервера, номер сеанса).

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": "ping"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sessionNoСеанс моста: идентификатор из sessions или часть строки соединения, имени конфигурации, пользователя. Не указан - единственный открытый сеанс.
timeoutNoСколько секунд ждать ответ. Команда, которую обработка не начала за это время, снимается; начатая выполняется дальше, её результат забирается инструментом result.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose the execution mechanism (the handler picks up the command and calls the 1C server) and the returned data (server time, session number), which is useful context about the async command-queue model. However, it doesn't state that this is a read-only/no-side-effect operation, nor how the result is retrieved for delayed commands (left to the schema's timeout text).

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the core purpose ('Проверка связи') and follows with the mechanism. No wasted phrases, though the parenthetical about return values is slightly compressed and could be clearer.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists and parameters are fully documented, so return values need not be explained. Still, for an annotation-free tool whose execution goes through a command queue, the description could clarify whether the ping result returns synchronously or via the 'result' sibling tool, and that it has no side effects. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both 'session' (with fallback behavior) and 'timeout' (including the cancellation semantics). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific function — connectivity check ('Проверка связи') — and explains the mechanism: the handler picks up the command and calls the 1C server, returning server time and session number. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like query/eval/execute/metadata, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use instead.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'Проверка связи' implies the usage context (verify the bridge to 1C is alive), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of the sibling 'sessions' tool which also relates to session state. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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