Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
robosimtools-mcp

robosimtools-mcp

by RahulRajelli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Diff ArduPilot Param Files

robosim_diff_ardupilot_params
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two ArduPilot .param files and report changed, added, or removed parameters using float-epsilon equality for reliable diff output.

Instructions

Compare two ArduPilot .param files (auto-detects the 3 real-world formats) and report changed / added / removed parameters, with float-epsilon equality.

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": {
      "before": "<before>",
      "after": "<after>"
    },
    "name": "robosim_diff_ardupilot_params"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
afterYes
beforeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare safe, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying float-epsilon equality and auto-detection of three real-world formats, enhancing behavioral understanding beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence, front-loaded with core action, no wasted words. All information is relevant and efficiently presented.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Covers main purpose, format detection, comparison method, and output categories. However, without an output schema, it omits details on return format and error conditions, leaving some gaps for a moderately complex tool.

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?

Parameters 'before' and 'after' are self-explanatory but the description adds no additional semantics (e.g., file path vs content, expected format). With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving ambiguity.

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 verb (compare), resource (ArduPilot .param files), and outputs (changed/added/removed parameters with float-epsilon equality). It distinguishes from sibling tools, which handle different operations.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use (comparing param files) but offers no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Sibling tools are distinct, so context helps, but direct instruction is missing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools