Inspect a specific ROS 2 node and retrieve its related topics using an exact node-name match.
Inspect a specific ROS2 node and find its related topics (exact name match).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_name | Yes | Node name, e.g. 'nav2_controller' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, and 'exact name match' adds a useful behavioral constraint. However, it does not clarify what 'related topics' includes (e.g., published/subscribed) or what the return format is, leaving some ambiguity.
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 a single, focused sentence without unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse.
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 tool is simple with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description adequately explains the core behavior and result (finding related topics), though it could be more explicit about what 'related topics' means. Given the simplicity, this is sufficient.
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 schema fully covers the only parameter (node_name) with a description and example, so the description adds no additional semantic value. The baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.
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 inspects a specific ROS2 node and finds its related topics, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_nodes and list_topics by focusing on a single node's related topics, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 phrase 'specific ROS2 node' implies the tool is for targeted inspection rather than listing all nodes or topics. This provides clear context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.