mechanical_get_block_analysisAnalyse one mechanical block (actuation, structure, energy, perception), for a single robot at a time. Requires an access right on the robot named, or on at least one robot when none is.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| block_id | Yes | ||
| robot_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by mentioning access rights and the single-robot constraint. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral context beyond the structured hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and includes a critical access-right note. No wasted words; every clause contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the main domain (mechanical blocks), scope (single robot), and access prerequisites. It misses details on parameter semantics but given the tool's simplicity and clear naming, it is reasonably complete. The block type enumeration adds useful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on block_id or robot_id beyond their names. It mentions 'block' and 'robot' but does not explain what block_id represents, what format it expects, or how robot_id interacts with the default empty value. This leaves parameter semantics mostly to the schema, which is sparse.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool analyzes one mechanical block, listing the block types (actuation, structure, energy, perception) and scopes it to a single robot at a time. It distinguishes from siblings via the 'mechanical' prefix and the specific block analysis intent, unlike hardware/software counterparts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear usage context: analysis of a single robot at a time and the need for an access right on the named robot or any robot when none is specified. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., hardware_get_block_analysis) or state when not to use it, leaving some room for inference from the naming convention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The layer prefixes and action verbs make most tools clearly distinct, but the three list_robots variants return the same catalogue and the three get_robot variants share identical commercial fields, creating real selection ambiguity. The descriptive warnings like 'call one, not three' help but do not fully resolve the overlap.
All 27 tools follow a uniform <layer>_<action>_<object> snake_case pattern with consistent verbs: get, list, compare. There are no mixed naming conventions or stylistic deviations.
27 tools is above the comfortable range and is inflated by triplication: list_robots, get_robot, compare_robots, list_signals, and system_status are repeated across layers with only minor differences. A layer parameter could consolidate a large portion of the surface without losing functionality.
As a read-only intelligence platform, the set covers catalogue listing, comparison, robot profiles, BOM details, block analysis, dependency analysis, signals, and system health across hardware, mechanical, and software layers. The main gap is the lack of a consolidated multi-layer robot view, though agents can compose one from the three get_robot variants.