software_get_block_analysisAnalyse one software block (OS, middleware, runtime, control, fleet), 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 identify the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds useful auth/access context and a single-robot constraint, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid/missing robot authorization or how an omitted robot_id is resolved when multiple robots are accessible.
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 compact and front-loaded: a clear verb, a scope-defining object, a single-robot constraint, and an access prerequisite. It contains no filler or redundant restatements of the tool name.
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 is adequate for a simple permission-gated read tool, but no output schema exists, so 'analyse' is left vague: it does not say what the result contains or how the block analysis differs from related tools like dependency-profile or system-status. More detail about return value and block_id semantics would significantly improve completeness.
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?
With 0% schema-description coverage, the parenthetical block types provide meaningful interpretation for block_id, and the access condition clarifies robot_id's optional role. However, it still lacks exact valid values for block_id and clear behavior for omitted robot_id when there are multiple accessible robots.
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 uses a specific verb 'Analyse' and clearly names the resource: one software block (OS, middleware, runtime, control, fleet) for a single robot. It distinguishes itself from the hardware/mechanical block-analysis siblings and from other software_* tools such as software_get_robot or software_compare_robots.
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 states the scope clearly: analyze one software block, one robot at a time, and it gives an access-right prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.
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.