mechanical_get_dependency_profileGeopolitical and supply chain dependency analysis for one robot, built on its mechanical BOM: geographic concentration, critical raw materials, single-source exposure. Requires an access right on the robot requested.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| robot_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds the requirement of an access right on the robot, and enumerates analysis dimensions (geographic concentration, critical raw materials, single-source exposure). No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a necessary access-right caveat. The list of analysis dimensions is compact but informative; no wasted words.
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?
Given the simple one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, scope, and access requirement adequately. It doesn't mention return details, but none are needed due to no output schema and low complexity.
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?
The schema only provides robot_id with a title, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by indicating the analysis is for 'one robot' and that access rights are required on the requested robot, giving practical meaning to robot_id. However, it doesn't describe format or constraints beyond that, so it's adequate but not exhaustive.
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 performs geopolitical and supply chain dependency analysis on a robot's mechanical BOM, listing specific outputs (geographic concentration, critical raw materials, single-source exposure). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hardware_get_dependency_profile or software_get_dependency_profile by emphasizing 'mechanical BOM' and from compare tools by specifying 'for one robot'.
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?
The description implies usage for analyzing a single robot's supply chain risks based on mechanical components. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'mechanical BOM' qualifier provides clear context relative to sibling tools. The access-right requirement adds a practical prerequisite.
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.