Retrieve a paginated list of GS cleaning robots, optionally filtered by relation, to inspect available robots before sending commands or monitoring status.
列出机器人 / List robots
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| relation | No | ||
| page_size | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Input schema / properties / page_size / defaultPrevious value: -10New value: +20Input schema / properties / relation / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / relation / typeRemoved value: -"string"v1.0.0Input schema / titleAdded value: +"list_robotsArguments"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states nothing about permissions, pagination, return format, or side effects.
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?
The description is extremely short but under-specified rather than concise. It fails to front-load any useful information.
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?
For a list tool with 3 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It omits what robots are listed, default page size behavior, and relation filtering.
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% for 3 parameters (page, relation, page_size). The description adds no meaning for any parameter, leaving relation's purpose and pagination semantics unexplained.
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 'List robots' is a tautological restatement of the tool name. It gives no scope or differentiation from siblings like get_robot_status or list_robot_maps.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.