Acquire mastership required to write to robot controller domains: rapid, cfg, motion.
Request mastership (needed for writes)
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": "rws_request_mastership"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description indicates a state-changing operation (requesting mastership) but does not detail idempotency, failure modes, or whether a prior request is needed. The essential behavior is conveyed, but more specifics are absent.
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 words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose in minimal space.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and context (needed for writes) but lacks parameter documentation and any mention of prerequisites or side effects, leaving gaps for an agent.
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 description provides no explanation of the 'domain' parameter, which has an enum of three values (rapid, cfg, motion). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no guidance on parameter meaning or valid values, severely hindering correct invocation.
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 clearly states the verb 'request' and the resource 'mastership', and explicitly notes it is needed for writes. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'rws_release_mastership'.
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 implies usage before write operations by saying 'needed for writes,' but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it mention the complementary release tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.