Load a RAPID module from a controller file into a specified task via RWS, with an option to replace an existing module.
Load a RAPID module from a file on the controller filesystem via RWS
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | Task name, e.g. 'T_ROB1' | |
| replace | No | Replace existing module (default: true) | |
| filepath | Yes | Path on controller, e.g. '$HOME/my_module.mod' |
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, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source of the module but not the side effects: existing-module replacement (the schema's 'replace' defaults to true), whether mastership/PP state is required, or what happens on a failed load. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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 tight sentence with the key qualifiers (source = controller filesystem, transport = RWS) front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than maximal 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?
Parameters and return semantics are adequately covered by the schema and the absence of an output schema keeps return-value expectations simple. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description should say more about overwrite/default behavior and required controller state.
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%, with 'task', 'filepath' examples and the 'replace' default all documented in the schema. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 a specific verb ('Load'), resource ('RAPID module'), and source ('from a file on the controller filesystem') with the transport ('via RWS'). This distinguishes it from the read/write siblings in spirit, though it never explicitly contrasts with rws_load_program or rws_write_module.
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 prefer this over rws_write_module (inline content) or rws_load_program, nor any prerequisites such as mastership or write-permission state. The reader must infer the use case purely from the name and the phrase 'from a file'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.