Retrieve a complete machine state snapshot—position, job progress, speed/power overrides, connection and jog settings—in one call to monitor laser status.
Requires capability "state". Latest state snapshot in one call: position, job state and progress, speed/power overrides, aux state, connection and jog settings. On Ruida controllers job.state is always idle and progress is never reported.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does add useful behavioral context: capability requirement, aggregated scope, and the Ruida controller limitation that job.state is always idle and progress is never reported. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect behavior, but the 'get' naming and snapshot framing make the read intent clear.
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-loads the capability requirement, then lists the snapshot contents, then gives the important controller caveat. Every sentence adds distinct information with no waste.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently identifies what the snapshot contains and calls out a major controller-specific limitation. Exact return structure is not specified, but the field list and caveat are enough for correct tool selection and invocation.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline for zero params is 4. The schema is empty and fully described by that absence.
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/resource combination ('Latest state snapshot') and explicitly enumerates the aggregated contents: position, job state/progress, overrides, aux state, connection and jog settings. The phrase 'in one call' distinguishes it from sibling getters such as get_position, get_jog_settings, connection_info, and get_status.
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?
It clearly frames the tool as a consolidated snapshot use case and states the prerequisite ('Requires capability "state"'). It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the one-call aggregation context gives sufficient usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.