Writes a file to an ABB controller filesystem through Robot Web Services (RWS), letting MCP clients create or update controller files by specifying a path and content.
Write a file to controller filesystem via RWS
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| content | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'write a file', but does not specify overwrite behavior, permissions required, error handling, or side effects. For a mutation tool, 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?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices informative content. It earns a mid score because it is not verbose, but it should include more details within a compact structure.
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, output schema, and parameter documentation, the description is woefully incomplete. An agent lacks critical information to correctly invoke the tool, such as parameter semantics and behavioral traits.
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 adds no explanation for the two parameters ('path' and 'content'). The agent receives no guidance on expected formats, path conventions, or content encoding.
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 action ('write') and resource ('file to controller filesystem via RWS'), making the basic purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'rws_write_module' or 'rws_write_variable', which could cause confusion for an agent.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to write a raw file vs. a module or variable), nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.