Transition EtherCAT slaves between INIT, PREOP, BOOT, SAFEOP, or OP states to control device operational modes.
Request an EtherCAT State Machine (ESM) transition (INIT, PREOP, BOOT, SAFEOP, OP) for a slave or all slaves.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slaveIndex | No | Optional slave index. If omitted, applies to all slaves and master. | |
| targetState | Yes | Target ESM state |
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 says a transition is requested but does not disclose whether this mutates slave state, what happens to running motion, what permissions are required, or how failures are reported.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The operation, valid states, and target scope are all presented efficiently.
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 tool is a potentially consequential ESM state-transition command with no annotations and no output schema. The description covers invocation basics but omits behavioral context such as prerequisites, side effects, and response expectations.
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 parameter semantics are already fully documented. The description reinforces the target-state enum and slave/all-slave scope, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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: requesting an EtherCAT State Machine transition, and enumerates the valid target states. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling `get_esm_state` by describing a transition request rather than a state read.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `get_esm_state` or `reset_error`. It only implies that the tool is used to change ESM state, without naming exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.