mechanical_get_robot_mechanicalMechanical bill of materials for one robot: motors, reducers, screws, bearings, batteries, structure, wiring. Requires an access right on the robot requested; without it the call returns a refusal naming that robot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| robot_id | Yes | ||
| blocks_only | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the access right requirement and the refusal behavior on failure, exceeding what annotations alone convey. There is no contradiction.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence directly states the tool's output, and the second adds a crucial access control note. Every word contributes value.
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?
The description enumerates BOM components but omits any details about return format, pagination, or the semantics of blocks_only. Given the absence of an output schema and the low parameter coverage, the description is insufficiently complete for a tool that returns a multi-component BOM.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. The 'blocks_only' parameter is not explained at all, and robot_id is only implicitly understood. The description lists BOM categories but ignores parameter meanings, leaving the agent guessing about how to invoke the tool correctly.
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's purpose: 'Mechanical bill of materials for one robot' and enumerates components (motors, reducers, screws, bearings, batteries, structure, wiring). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mechanical_get_robot_signals or hardware_get_robot_hardware.
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 mentions a prerequisite: 'Requires an access right on the robot requested; without it the call returns a refusal naming that robot.' However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like hardware_get_robot_hardware. The guidance is implied by the tool's name and category but not made explicit.
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.