Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BonengDriveMCP

BonengDriveMCP

by time32
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

discover_device_parameter_catalog

Read-onlyIdempotent

Refresh a read-only parameter catalog by retrieving device identity, group structure, addresses, names, and attributes for all groups or one group, returning a summary and local path.

Instructions

只读刷新设备功能码目录：A/A1 身份与参数版本，B6 大组、B4 子组数量、B5 实际地址/参数数量/组名，再用 B1/B3 获取属性/名称。不依赖 bnproj。group 为空读取完整目录，也可指定 B05/P11 单组；返回摘要及本地完整目录路径，不读取全部当前值。身份引导当前支持 AN 平台 9，其他平台尚未适配。

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": "discover_device_parameter_catalog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portNoCOM7
groupNo
transportNoselected_tcp

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.11.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is to add context, which it does: no bnproj dependency, returns a summary plus a local full-catalog file path, and explicitly does not pull live values. The one gap is that 'refresh' implies overwriting a cached catalog without saying what happens to the previous one.

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 dense, front-loaded paragraph where nearly every clause carries information (scope, dependencies, branching rule, return shape, platform limit). The protocol code strings (A/A1, B6, B4, B5, B1/B3) are internal noise for an agent but do not pad the text meaningfully.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers scope, dependency, branching, and platform limitation, leaving only the unexplained port/transport parameters and the cache-overwrite semantics as gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It fully explains `group` (empty = full catalog, or a single B05/P11 group), but says nothing about `port` or `transport` (serial vs selected_tcp), leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource pair ('只读刷新设备功能码目录' / read-only refresh of the device function-code catalog) and enumerates what the catalog covers (identity/parameter version, group/subgroup counts, addresses, names). It also implicitly separates itself from read_device_parameters by stating it 'does not read all current values'. It stops short of naming the sibling it replaces, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

It gives an explicit branching rule for the main optional parameter ('group 为空读取完整目录，也可指定 B05/P11 单组') and a real exclusion via the platform caveat that identity bootstrap only works on AN platform 9. What it lacks is a named alternative for the 'read current values' case, which is left to inference.

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