Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ros2-inspector

ros2-inspector

by XuChen-AI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

actions

List ROS 2 action definitions with optional types, or inspect a named action to see server and client counts.

Instructions

查询 ROS2 动作（action）。

何时用：想看系统里有哪些动作、某个动作被谁提供服务。 action_name 不传=列出全部动作（show_types=True 时附带类型）； 传入=查看该动作详情：动作服务端/客户端数量（原文返回）。 参数 action_name：动作全名，以 / 开头（如 /rotate_absolute）。 失败时返回 error。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "actions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
show_typesNo
action_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that output varies by mode, that show_types affects the listing, that details are 'returned raw' (原文返回), and that failures return an error. The only gap is it doesn't describe the return format or size beyond that.

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?

Tight and front-loaded: purpose, when-to-use, the two behaviors, the parameter note, and error handling in a few lines with zero filler.

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?

For a read-only introspection tool with two params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description tells the agent enough to call it correctly in both modes. Slightly more on the detail-mode return contents would make it fully complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it covers both parameters: show_types (attaches type info when True) and action_name (full name, leading slash, example /rotate_absolute). The example is the main value-add, though no constraints beyond the format are elaborated.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: query ROS2 actions, and names the two distinct modes (list all vs. inspect one). An agent can easily separate this from siblings like list_nodes, list_topics, and params, which cover different ROS2 entities.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The 何时用 line explicitly scopes usage to two situations (seeing which actions exist, and who provides one). It gives clear context but names no alternative tool or exclusion condition, so it stops short of 5.

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