Reads cyclic process data (TxPDO inputs) such as digital inputs, analog voltages, and motor feedback position/velocity; optionally targets one slave or reads all slaves.
Read cyclic process data (TxPDO inputs: Digital Inputs, Analog Voltages, Motor feedback position/velocity).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slaveIndex | No | Optional slave index. If omitted, reads all slaves. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation and lists data categories, but it does not state side effects, permissions, whether the read is non-destructive, or what the returned data looks like.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the operation and the data categories involved.
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 read tool with one fully documented optional parameter, the description covers the domain and data categories. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits return behavior and operational traits that would make the definition complete.
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 fully documents the single optional parameter, slaveIndex, including that omitting it reads all slaves. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read cyclic process data' and scopes it to TxPDO inputs. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as read_sdo or write_pdo.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage through the phrase 'cyclic process data (TxPDO inputs),' but it never names read_sdo, write_pdo, or any condition that would select one over another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.