Reads the drone's current roll, pitch, and yaw angles in degrees from a Betaflight flight controller, enabling attitude monitoring during flight or tuning.
Attitude du drone : roulis, tangage, cap en degrés
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish this as a safe, local read, so the bar is lower. The description contributes the unit of the returned values (degrees), which is genuine added context, but says nothing about frame of reference, update rate, or freshness of the reading.
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?
A single short sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the exact fields returned. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return values, and it does so by naming roll, pitch and heading plus their unit. Only minor details (reference frame, whether heading is magnetic or true) are absent.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's unit information (degrees) pertains to output rather than input and does not affect parameter semantics.
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?
States a specific verb (get) and resource (drone attitude) and enumerates the returned quantities: roll, pitch, heading. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling get_imu_data, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: a zero-argument getter whose name and description make its purpose self-evident. There is no statement of when to prefer it over get_imu_data or get_altitude, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.