Write a controller configuration file to a RobotStudio controller by specifying the file name and content, enabling direct updates to controller config files through the MCP server.
Write controller config file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| content | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as destructiveness, required permissions, or side effects. It merely states the action.
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 sentence, which is too brief to be helpful. While concise, it lacks necessary structure and detail.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is grossly incomplete for a mutation tool with two required parameters. No information on return values, error conditions, or prerequisites.
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 0%, and the description does not explain what 'name' and 'content' represent, nor provide any format or constraints 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 'Write controller config file' uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like rs_read_config. However, it lacks scope or context about what kind of controller config.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rs_write_module or rs_read_config. The description provides no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.