Move a named object in CoppeliaSim to specified (x, y, z) coordinates in meters, relative to world or another frame. Use it to place objects at exact positions in the simulation scene.
Mueve un objeto a la posición (x, y, z), en metros.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| z | Yes | ||
| nombre | Yes | ||
| relativo_a | No | mundo |
| 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, and the description only states the action without revealing side effects, error conditions, or whether the position is absolute or relative. The existence of the parameter 'relativo_a' suggests a reference frame, but this is not explained. There is no mention of what happens if the object is already at that position or if coordinates are out of range.
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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core function efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse and act upon.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the main action and units, but it omits critical context about the 'relativo_a' parameter and the coordinate frame. While the output schema is indicated to exist, the description does not mention expected return values or side effects, leaving some gaps for an agent to trust the tool's behavior.
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 description only explains the meaning of x, y, z as coordinates in meters, but it does not clarify the role of 'nombre' (object name) or 'relativo_a' (relative to). Since the schema provides no descriptions, the description fails to add value for these parameters, leaving significant ambiguity about the reference frame and object identification.
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's function: moving an object to a specified position (x, y, z). It is specific with a verb (mover) and resource (objeto), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fijar_orientacion (set orientation). The inclusion of units (metros) adds precision.
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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where setting position is appropriate, nor does it contrast with sibling functions like obtener_posicion or fijar_orientacion. Users are left to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.