Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
digital-twin-mcp

digital-twin-mcp

by xici001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_device_value

Write parameters to digital twin devices to simulate PLC writes or inject faults such as raising temperature to trigger alerts.

Instructions

写入设备参数（模拟 PLC 写值；也可用于演示故障注入，如手动抬高温度触发告警）。

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": {
      "device_id": "<device_id>",
      "metric": "<metric>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "set_device_value"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueYes
metricYes
device_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. It mentions simulation and fault injection but lacks details on side effects, persistence, or permissions needed.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words.

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?

Given it's a simple setter with no output schema, the description could be complete, but it omits parameter details and behavioral implications, leaving gaps for a write operation.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions and the tool description does not explain device_id, metric, or value. Parameter semantics are almost entirely missing.

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 clearly states it writes device parameters, simulating PLC writes, and mentions fault injection. This distinguishes it from sibling read/list tools.

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 provides usage contexts (simulating PLC writes, fault injection demos) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives; still clear enough for typical use.

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