mechanical_list_signalsList mechanical supply chain, performance and operational signals across the panel, with filters. Panel-wide, not per robot: requires an access right on at least one robot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| block_id | No | ||
| active_only | No | ||
| signal_type | No | ||
| min_severity | No | ||
| component_type | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. Description adds the scope constraint (panel-wide vs per-robot) and the access-right requirement, which are not in annotations. This provides useful context for invocation without redundancy.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler words; both sentences provide essential information.
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 listing tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, scope, and access requirements. However, it lacks any parameter semantics and does not describe pagination or return structure, which is significant given no output schema. It's adequate but has clear gaps.
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 explain any of the 8 parameters. It only says 'with filters' generically, leaving the meanings of signal_type, min_severity, component_type, etc. unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'List' with clear resource 'mechanical supply chain, performance and operational signals' and scope 'across the panel'. It distinguishes from per-robot siblings by stating 'not per robot', clarifying this is the panel-wide signal listing tool.
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?
Explicitly states 'Panel-wide, not per robot', providing a clear when-not guideline. Also discloses access prerequisite ('requires an access right on at least one robot'). While it doesn't name sibling alternatives, the domain qualifier 'mechanical' and contrast with per-robot tools sufficiently guides selection.
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.