Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Delta PLC Agent

Delta PLC Agent

by ufukefekaya-tr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

target.resolve

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve exact Delta PLC model and compatible adapter from supplied configuration details, keeping ambiguous selections explicit.

Instructions

Resolve exact model and compatible adapter; ambiguous selection stays explicit.

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "target.resolve"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
operationNo
project_targetNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint: false, and openWorldHint: false. The description adds that ambiguous selection remains explicit rather than being silently chosen, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not cover errors, permissions, or rate limits.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though the semicolon clause is terse and could be more structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has a nested input schema with 0% parameter description coverage, and the description does not explain the core input parameters or usage flow. An output schema exists, so return values need less description, but the input semantics remain insufficiently covered.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, with three parameters including nested target and project_target objects. The description does not name or explain 'target', 'operation', or 'project_target', so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resources: 'Resolve exact model and compatible adapter.' That is clearer than a tautology, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as adapter.invoke or capabilities.list.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use condition, and no named alternative. The clause 'ambiguous selection stays explicit' describes behavior rather than usage context.

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