Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ignition-JavaDoc-MCP

Ignition-JavaDoc-MCP

by soubhagya2001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

search_ignition_api

Search Ignition Java API docs to find classes, packages, or members. Filter by type and version for precise results.

Instructions

Searches the Ignition Java API documentation for classes, packages, or members.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_ignition_api"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoOptional filter for the type of element to search for
queryYesThe search query (e.g. 'Dataset')
versionNoIgnition version to query (default: '8.1.39')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only rephrases the tool's basic function, adding no details about return format, result count, pagination, or read-only nature. The agent gains little insight beyond the tool name.

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 a single, focused sentence that states the purpose without any filler. It is well-front-loaded and appropriately concise for a simple search tool.

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?

The tool has only three parameters with full schema coverage, so the description does not need to explain them. However, with no output schema and no behavioral context, the description remains minimal but adequate for a straightforward search operation.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add extra meaning or context for the parameters, making the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool's action ('searches') and target ('Ignition Java API documentation'), and mentions the three element types (classes, packages, members). It is distinct from sibling tools that 'get' specific docs, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling retrieval tools. The description implies a search-first workflow but does not state it, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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