Retrieve all topic, service, and action connections for a specified ROS 2 node. Use to understand its system interactions or diagnose misconfigurations.
获取指定节点的连接详情：发布/订阅哪些话题、提供/调用哪些服务与动作。
何时用：已知节点名，想看它与系统其他部分的连接关系； 或配合 system_overview 下钻某个可疑节点。 参数 node：节点全名，以 / 开头（如 /talker），大小写敏感。 返回：CLI 原始分节报告（Publishers/Subscribers/Service Servers/Action Servers 等）。失败时返回 error（常见原因：名称拼错、节点刚好退出）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | 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 burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses the return shape (raw CLI sectioned report with named sections) and failure semantics (error return, likely causes: typo'd name, node just exited). It does not discuss permissions or read-only nature, but for an inspection tool the disclosure is solid beyond structured fields.
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?
Three labeled blocks (purpose / when-to-use / params+returns) with the function statement front-loaded and zero filler; every sentence carries information an agent needs.
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?
No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must supply both the return format and failure behavior it does. For a single-parameter, read-only introspection tool, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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 does: it specifies the expected format (fully-qualified name, leading '/', e.g. /talker) and the case-sensitivity constraint, which is precisely the syntax the bare string schema lacks.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('get connection details for a node') and enumerates the exact facets returned (topics, services, actions), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_topic_info, show_interface, and list_nodes. An agent can identify the right tool without opening a schema.
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?
Explicit '何时用' section names the triggering condition (known node name, want to see its connections) and a concrete drill-down workflow with the sibling system_overview. No alternative is left implicit for the node-introspection case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.