Switch the RWS target controller URL at runtime to change between virtual and real controllers without restarting RobotStudio.
Switch RWS target controller at runtime (virtual ↔ real, no restart needed)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | New controller URL, e.g. 'http://localhost:80' (virtual) or 'http://192.168.125.1:80' (real) |
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 behavioral burden. It does disclose one important trait — the switch is live and requires no restart — but says nothing about side effects: whether an active connection or running program is dropped, whether mastership is affected (cf. rws_request_mastership), or whether the change persists.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical earns its place by conveying the mode distinction. Only the slightly cryptic '↔' notation keeps it from a 5.
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 one-parameter runtime switcher with no output schema, gone is fine, but an agent still lacks answers to operational questions — is it safe to call while a program runs, and does the switch invalidate existing handles or mastership? That context is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already gives concrete virtual/real URL examples, so the description adds little beyond it. The 'virtual ↔ real' phrasing loosely maps to the two URL forms but no format, validation, or failure semantics are added.
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+resource ('Switch RWS target controller') and clarifies scope with 'at runtime (virtual ↔ real)'. It is clearly distinct from the read/write/status siblings, though it doesn't name or contrast any of them explicitly.
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 phrase 'at runtime ... no restart needed' implies the situation where this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as rws_restart_controller, which is the nearest sibling in intent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.