Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
robosimtools-mcp

robosimtools-mcp

by RahulRajelli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Xacro to URDF

robosim_xacro_to_urdf
Read-onlyIdempotent

Convert Xacro robot descriptions with macros, conditionals, and includes into standard URDF format for compatibility with ROS and simulation tools.

Instructions

Expand Xacro properties, macros, conditionals, and includes into plain URDF. Provide included files by basename in includes.

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": {
      "xacro": "<xacro>"
    },
    "name": "robosim_xacro_to_urdf"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xacroYesThe main .xacro XML text.
includesNoMap of { basename: fileContents } for any xacro:include.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the expansion process and the need to supply included files. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but description provides the actual mechanism.

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?

Two concise sentences, no redundancy. First sentence states main action, second clarifies key parameter. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers main behavior and parameter usage. No output schema, so return values not needed. Could mention error handling or requirements for included files, but overall sufficient for a straightforward preprocessing tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, providing full parameter definitions. Description reinforces the includes parameter by explaining how to provide included files (by basename). Does not add new meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's action (expand Xacro to URDF) and resource (Xacro properties, macros, conditionals, includes). It distinguishes itself from sibling conversion tools like sdf_to_urdf or step_to_urdf.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, the purpose implies it's specifically for Xacro preprocessing, and siblings cover other formats. Could benefit from mentioning alternatives for non-Xacro inputs.

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