Load a .ttt or .xml scene into CoppeliaSim from disk, preparing the environment for simulation. Restricts file access to the configured scenes directory for safety.
Carga una escena .ttt o .xml desde disco.
Solo se permiten rutas por debajo del directorio configurado en COPPELIA_DIRECTORIO_ESCENAS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ruta | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the path restriction, a meaningful behavioral constraint. But it does not mention potential side effects like replacing the current scene or whether the simulation must be stopped before loading, which could be important for safe invocation.
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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first states the action and object, the second adds a crucial constraint, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential purpose and constraint. The output schema presumably documents return values, so that is not a gap. It could be more complete by noting whether loading replaces the current scene or requires a stopped simulation, but these are minor omissions.
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 has only a bare 'ruta' string parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by specifying that the path must point to a .ttt or .xml file and must be located beneath the configured COPPELIA_DIRECTORIO_ESCENAS directory, giving the parameter clear semantic meaning.
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 'Carga' (loads) and clearly identifies the resource: a scene file with .ttt or .xml extension from disk. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cerrar_escena (close scene) and simulation control tools, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 usage is implied by the verb and resource: use this to load a scene file. The description adds a clear constraint that only paths under COPPELIA_DIRECTORIO_ESCENAS are allowed, which guides when and how to call it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.