Inspect any Factorio entity to retrieve inventory indices and connected rails without needing player reach, helping diagnose builds and rail connections.
Inspect an entity, including inventory indices and connected rails. No reach required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| surface | No | nauvis | |
| position | No | ||
| unit_number | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: no reach/proximity requirement. It leaves other important behavior unstated – whether the call is strictly read-only, what happens if the entity cannot be resolved, and whether the entity must be visible or loaded on the surface.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The detail about returned contents and the reach exemption both earn their place, and nothing is restated from the schema or title.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, but for a tool with four entirely undocumented optional parameters and no annotations the description is too thin. It should clarify the lookup-key combinations and the surface/position semantics to be callable without guesswork.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It never explains that name, position, and unit_number are alternative lookup keys, nor what surface controls (default 'nauvis'), leaving the agent to guess at mutually exclusive identification strategies from bare property titles.
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 states a specific verb (inspect) and resource (an entity) and adds what the inspection surfaces: inventory indices and connected rails. That is clearer than a bare 'inspect_entity', but it never distinguishes this read from siblings like observe, get_world, or configure_entity, so an agent still has to infer which read tool to pick.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; nothing says how this differs from observe or get_world. The phrase 'No reach required' hints that it works at a distance, implicitly contrasting with mine_entity/place_entity, but that is inference rather than stated routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.