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

mcp-1c-local-bridge

by ntappw
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

sessions

Lists open 1C bridge forms with their database, user, configuration, state, and permissions, helping agents choose the correct 1C target before running queries or BSL code.

Instructions

Сеансы 1С, в которых открыта форма обработки моста: база, пользователь, конфигурация, состояние и разрешения. Обработку (dist/MCPLocalBridge.epf) пользователь открывает в нужной базе через Файл - Открыть.

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": "sessions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it implies a read-only listing by describing returned session fields and the setup needed for a session to appear. It does not explicitly confirm read-only status, permissions required, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: the first defines the session resource and fields, the second gives the prerequisite for a session to exist. No redundant or filler text.

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?

With an output schema present and no parameters, the description needn't explain return format; it covers what sessions are and how they become available. It still leaves the agent without explicit when-to-use guidance, preventing a top score.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so parameter semantics do not need explanation. The baseline score of 4 applies.

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 identifies the resource as 1C sessions where the bridge processing form is open and enumerates the returned data: base, user, configuration, state, and permissions. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' and does not name a sibling to differentiate from, so it stops short of 5.

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?

It explains the prerequisite that a user opens the processing in the desired base via File - Open, but never states when an agent should call this tool versus siblings like query, eval, or metadata. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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