software_list_robotsList the robot catalogue with filters, including software tier and software-profile status. Returns the same catalogue as the hardware and mechanical variants - call one, not three. Pick this one to filter by software tier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pays | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| categorie | No | ||
| min_score | No | ||
| in_scope_only | No | ||
| software_tier | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds that this returns the same catalogue as hardware and mechanical variants, and highlights inclusion of software tier and software-profile status. This gives useful behavioral context about output equivalence and filter scope, though it doesn't detail pagination or error behavior.
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?
Three succinct sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds value: what it does, the equivalence to other variants, and selection guidance.
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 gives a solid overview but lacks detail on most filters and return values. Given 8 parameters and no output schema, more explanation of parameter semantics would be needed for full completeness, though annotations and the simple list nature keep it minimally viable.
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. It only explicitly mentions the software_tier filter, leaving seven other parameters (pays, limit, offset, status, categorie, min_score, in_scope_only) unexplained. This is a significant gap for a list tool with 8 optional filters.
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 lists the robot catalogue with filters, specifically mentioning software tier and software-profile status. It distinguishes from sibling hardware/mechanical list_robots variants by noting this is the software-filtered version and that the catalogues are identical.
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?
Explicit guidance says 'Pick this one to filter by software tier' and warns 'call one, not three', directly telling when to use this tool versus the hardware and mechanical variants. This provides clear context and exclusions.
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.