plecs_rpcInvokes any PLECS RPC method verbatim, returning dict results unchanged and wrapping scalars or arrays as result objects for low-level control.
Raw escape hatch: call any PLECS RPC method verbatim.
Dict results are returned as-is; scalars and arrays are wrapped as {"result": ...}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | Yes | ||
| params | No | ||
| timeout | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully explains return wrapping for dicts versus scalars/arrays, but it omits critical traits such as whether arbitrary RPC methods can mutate or destroy state, permission requirements, timeout behavior, and error handling for an inherently low-level escape hatch.
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 two tight sentences with zero waste, and the escape-hatch framing is front-loaded ahead of the return-value detail. Every sentence earns its place.
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 raw RPC escape hatch with 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a rich sibling set, the description is under-specified. The output schema covers return values, but an agent still lacks guidance on method discovery, parameter structure, timeout semantics, and safety implications.
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% for three parameters, so the description should compensate and does not. It never explains what a valid method string looks like, how params should be formatted or ordered, what timeout units mean, or how to discover available methods.
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 specific action and resource: call any PLECS RPC method verbatim. The phrase 'raw escape hatch' signals its fallback role relative to the many specialized sibling tools, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative.
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?
Calling it a 'raw escape hatch' implies it is for cases not covered by dedicated tools, but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus siblings like plecs_list_methods, plecs_method_help, or plecs_validate. Usage is only weakly implied rather than instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.