Read ROS 2 node parameter values or list all parameter names for a node, helping diagnose configuration and runtime behavior without modifying settings.
读取指定节点的参数（只读，不支持设置）。
何时用：想看某节点配置了什么、某个行为开关当前是什么值。 参数 node：节点全名，以 / 开头（如 /talker）； name：参数名（不带前导斜杠，如 use_sim_time；复杂参数名可含 . 与 /）。 name 不传=列出该节点全部参数名；传入=读取该参数当前值 （raw 字段为含类型前缀的原文，如 "Integer value: 10"）。 失败时返回 error（常见：节点名拼错、节点无此参数）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| 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 does well: it declares the read-only/no-set constraint, explains the 'raw' field's type-prefixed format ('Integer value: 10'), and documents the failure mode (returns error for misspelled node or unknown parameter). It does not cover permissions or behavior for complex/nested parameter values.
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?
Front-loaded purpose, then usage, then parameter rules, then return/failure behavior. Every line adds information with no padding.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description still covers the essentials an agent needs: semantics of the optional parameter, the shape of the returned value, and the failure contract. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter read tool.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'node' is a full name with a leading slash, 'name' has no leading slash and may contain '.' and '/', and the omitted-vs-provided distinction (list all names vs read one value) is spelled out explicitly.
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 and resource: reads the parameters of a given ROS node, explicitly read-only ('只读，不支持设置'). An agent can tell this apart from generic node inspection tools, though no sibling is named to sharpen the boundary against get_node_info/list_nodes.
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?
Gives an explicit 'when to use' clause: inspecting a node's configuration or the current value of a behavior switch. It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.