Monitor the status of a motion plan execution. View real-time progress (0-1) and the result of the last command to ensure robotic safety and task monitoring.
Whether a plan is executing, its progress (0..1) and the result of the last execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | ||
| plan_id | No | ||
| progress | No | 0..1 fraction of the active plan | |
| executing | Yes | ||
| last_result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that progress is normalized 0..1 and that the last execution result is included, but doesn't say whether this is per-plan or global, whether status is transient/stale, or how to interpret a failed prior run.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the primary signal (is a plan executing) and then enumerates the secondary outputs. No waste, though the elliptical fragment style trades a little readability for brevity.
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?
An output schema exists, so the return shape needn't be spelled out, and zero params keep the call surface trivial. What's missing is lifecycle context, such as when this is meaningful relative to execute_plan/stop_motion and whether the last-result field persists across unrelated runs.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage of 100% means no parameter gaps exist in either place.
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?
States what the tool reports: execution state, progress (0..1), and the last execution result for a plan. This is specific enough to separate it from siblings like get_robot_state or get_safety_status, though the verb is implicit (a fragment rather than 'Get...').
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 indication of when to call it or what it relates to (e.g., poll after execute_plan, check before stop_motion/error_recovery). The only hint about alternatives is the implicit contrast with the robot-state siblings, which the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.