Retrieve EtherCAT bus diagnostics such as frame loss, jitter, cycle time, CRC errors, and active AL errors to monitor bus health and troubleshoot faults.
Get EtherCAT bus diagnostic metrics including frame loss, jitter, cycle time, CRC errors, and active AL errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. Listing the concrete metrics is useful context and 'Get' implies a non-mutating read, but it doesn't say whether the call samples live data, takes a snapshot over time, could affect bus traffic, or requires specific permissions — meaningful gaps for a fieldbus diagnostic read.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then packs the metric list with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
No output schema and no annotations exist, but the description enumerates the returned metrics, which substantially compensates for the missing return-value documentation. It is nearly complete for a zero-parameter read; only live-vs-snapshot behavior and any bus-load caveats are absent.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning the description needs to supplement, and the schema is trivially complete.
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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('EtherCAT bus diagnostic metrics') and enumerates the exact metrics returned, so the agent knows precisely what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_slave_info or get_topology, but the resource scope is distinctive enough to avoid confusion.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is for monitoring/troubleshooting bus health, but the description never states when to call it versus get_esm_state, get_slave_info, or reset_error. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.