Retrieve the task capabilities of a specific GS cleaning robot using its serial number to plan and execute appropriate operations.
查询机器人任务能力 / Get task capabilities
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| robot_sn | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Input schema / properties / robot_snAdded value: +{
+ "title": "Robot Sn",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / serial_numberRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Serial Number",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "serial_number"
-]New value: +[
+ "robot_sn"
+]v1.0.0Input schema / titleAdded value: +"get_robot_capabilitiesArguments"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no confirmation this is a read-only lookup, no auth/permission notes, no indication of whether the robot must be reachable, and no hint about what is returned. The single word 'Get' is the only behavioral signal.
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?
It is two short bilingual phrases with no filler, so nothing is wasted. But it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity leaves core questions unanswered and the bilingual duplication adds no informational value.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description is the only place to learn what 'task capabilities' means and what comes back, and it says nothing. For a tool whose entire value is the returned capability set, this is a significant gap.
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% and the one required parameter (robot_sn) is documented only by its title 'Robot Sn'. The description adds no meaning about its expected format, source, or whether it identifies a physical robot versus a logical entity.
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 gives a verb (Get) and a resource (task capabilities) for a robot, so the general operation is inferable. However, 'capabilities' is never defined and it is not distinguished from siblings like get_robot_status or list_work_modes, which could plausibly return overlapping information. Vague on what 'capabilities' actually means.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus get_robot_status, list_work_modes, or list_task_definitions, nor any prerequisite such as the robot needing to be online. The agent must guess from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.