Discover all currently running ROS2 nodes and their namespaces to monitor active robot processes.
List all currently running ROS2 nodes with their namespaces.
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": "list_nodes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only restates the basic action of listing nodes and offers no additional context about side effects, read-only nature, connectivity requirements, or return format. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.
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, succinct sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. It conveys the essential information without any filler or redundancy.
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 no parameters and no output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. It specifies that namespaces are included in the listing, which gives some idea of the return content. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the output structure (e.g., a list of node names with their namespaces), though this is not a critical gap.
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 input schema is empty with no parameters, so there is no parameter information to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly makes no parameter claims. No additional semantics are needed.
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 all currently running ROS2 nodes and includes namespaces. The verb 'list' is specific, the resource is identified, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_node_info and list_topics.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it relates to get_node_info or list_topics. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.