pns-server MCP Server

connect_workstation_bypass

Route the bypass output of one workstation to the input of another, enabling manual connection setup for production systems.

Instructions

Connect bypass output of one workstation to input of next.

Prefer add_conveyor_line which creates all connections automatically.

Args: source_workstation_name: Source workstation name target_workstation_name: Target workstation name

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": {
      "source_workstation_name": "<source_workstation_name>",
      "target_workstation_name": "<target_workstation_name>"
    },
    "name": "connect_workstation_bypass"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source_workstation_name`	Yes
`target_workstation_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., workstation existence), or result behavior. The description is minimal beyond the action itself.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two short sentences and a parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and uses no unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema and clear sibling alternatives, the description is minimally adequate. It could be improved by mentioning what happens if workstations don't exist or what the output represents.

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?

The description lists parameter names but adds no extra meaning such as format, constraints, or examples beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 0%, and the Args section merely repeats the schema properties.

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?

The description explicitly states it connects the bypass output of one workstation to the input of the next, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool add_conveyor_line by noting it is a manual alternative.

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?

The description recommends using add_conveyor_line instead for automatic connections, providing clear guidance on when to prefer an alternative. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool, but the context 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