Retrieve the current simulation state and elapsed time to monitor simulation progress and status.
Get simulation state and time
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "rs_simulation_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'gets' data, implying a non-destructive read, but does not mention any nuances such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or the exact fields returned (e.g., 'running', 'paused', simulation time).
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 extremely concise at two words, which is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. However, it could benefit from a slightly more detailed expansion (e.g., specifying that it returns state like running/paused/stopped and simulation time) without losing conciseness.
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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain the return values. It mentions 'state and time' but does not describe their format or possible values, leaving a significant gap in context. The tool is simple, yet the description is incomplete.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. According to the scoring rule, a tool with no parameters receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no additional parameter meaning since none exist, but the baseline score is appropriate.
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 'Get simulation state and time' uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as the simulation's current state and time. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that perform actions (e.g., start, stop) or retrieve other data (e.g., position, screenshot).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While its purpose is clear, there is no explicit instruction about context or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.