Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ros2-mcp-server

ros2-mcp-server

by EngineerAbdullahBinZafar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_robot_snapshot

Retrieve LiDAR, IMU, battery, velocity commands, and odometry in a single parallel call, reducing latency compared to sequential topic reads.

Instructions

Fetch LiDAR, IMU, battery, cmd_vel, and odometry in one parallel call. Faster than calling read_topic five times sequentially.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_robot_snapshot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context by mentioning 'parallel call' and 'faster,' but it does not explicitly state side effects, error handling, or the read-only nature, leaving some ambiguity for a fetch operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core function and followed by a performance rationale. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or extraneous information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently states the input (none) and the output data types (LiDAR, IMU, battery, cmd_vel, odometry). It could elaborate on return format or failure behavior, but given the simplicity of the tool, the description is adequately complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully documents the input (empty properties). The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and the baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to explain. The description correctly implies that no configuration is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool fetches LiDAR, IMU, battery, cmd_vel, and odometry in one call, specifying a concrete verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool read_topic by aggregating multiple topics, so an agent can easily identify its unique purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear usage context by stating it is faster than calling read_topic five times sequentially, which implies when to prefer this tool over the alternative. It does not explicitly list exclusions or when not to use it, but the comparison to read_topic serves as a practical guideline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools