mechanical_get_robotCommercial profile of one robot (specs, pricing, viability score), plus its mechanical-profile status. The commercial fields are identical in all three get_robot variants - the layer flag is the only difference.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| robot_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate these. It adds useful output coverage context (specs, pricing, viability, mechanical status), but no additional behavioral traits such as auth, pagination, or response format. 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?
The description is two short sentences that earn their place. It front-loads the main return content and then clarifies the relationship among variants, with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple one-parameter read-only getter, the description gives sufficient high-level output details and a note about variant consistency. It could add error conditions or exact field examples, but the available schema plus annotations make it reasonably complete.
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 has only one parameter, robot_id, with no schema description and no explanation in the tool description. The identifier is fairly self-evident, but for low schema coverage the description should compensate; it does not mention robot_id format, source, or expected values.
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 that the tool returns a commercial profile (specs, pricing, viability score) plus mechanical-profile status for one robot. It identifies the resource and scope, although it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets' and only implicitly differentiates this from the other get_robot variants.
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 this tool is the mechanical-layer get_robot variant and notes that commercial fields are identical across all three variants, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like mechanical_get_robot_mechanical, compare_robots, or signals tools.
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.