Read a CANopen over EtherCAT (CoE) SDO object from a specified slave using its Index and SubIndex to retrieve device parameters and status data.
Read a CANopen over EtherCAT (CoE) SDO object by Index (e.g. 0x6041 or "0x6041") and SubIndex.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | SDO Index, hex string (e.g. "0x6041") or integer | |
| subIndex | No | SDO SubIndex (default 0) | |
| slaveIndex | Yes | Slave index on the bus |
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 states that the operation is a read, but does not disclose return format, error behavior for invalid slave/index, communication side effects, or any safety/permission context.
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 filler. It immediately names the operation, protocol, resource, and key parameters.
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 description is adequate for selection and parameter identification, but with no output schema it does not explain what read_sdo returns or how errors are surfaced. For a read operation, that missing return-value context is a clear 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents index, subIndex, and slaveIndex. The description only repeats the index/subIndex examples and adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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 ('Read') and resource ('CANopen over EtherCAT (CoE) SDO object') and clarifies the required Index/SubIndex format. This clearly distinguishes it from the write_sdo sibling and lets an agent identify the operation without opening the schema.
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 implied by 'Read a ... SDO object by Index ... and SubIndex,' but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over read_pdo, get_slave_info, or write_sdo. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.