tactus

Vibrate pattern

vibrate_pattern

Sends a timed multi-step vibration pattern to a hardware device, with configurable intensity and duration per step. Interruptible by any stop command.

Instructions

[Hardware control] Forwards a command to physical hardware. Play a timed multi-step vibration pattern; interruptible by any stop.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "device_id": "<device_id>",
      "steps": "<steps>"
    },
    "name": "vibrate_pattern"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`steps`	Yes
`repeat`	No
`device_id`	Yes	Device id from list_devices
`actuator_index`	No	Restrict to one actuator index; omit to drive all matching actuators

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions forward to hardware, play pattern, and interruptibility, but omits side effects (e.g., immediate haptic feedback), idempotency, required permissions, or device state prerequisites.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficient at two sentences, front-loading the action and hardware control context. It earns its place, though it could be structured with bullet points for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and hardware control, the description lacks details on repeat behavior (default?), actuator_index omission effects, and return values. The agent may misuse if not informed about these aspects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (descriptions for device_id and steps only). The description adds no meaning beyond 'play a timed multi-step vibration pattern' and does not clarify repeat behavior, actuator_index usage, or intensity range validation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool plays a timed multi-step vibration pattern on physical hardware. It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., vibrate, oscillate) by specifying 'multi-step' and 'interruptible by any stop'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vibrate (likely single-step) or other motion tools. No prerequisites or explicit when/when-not conditions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server