turn_to_headingRotate the robot in place to a specified absolute heading, defined clockwise from its starting orientation. Use heading_deg (0-359) and optional speed_percent.
Spin on the spot to face an absolute heading.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| heading_deg | Yes | 0 = the way the robot faced when it connected (or at reset_position), clockwise | |
| speed_percent | No | 100% = 180°/s |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description usefully adds that the motion is in place (no translation), but it does not say whether the call blocks until the turn completes, how collisions are handled, or whether motion must be enabled first.
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?
A single nine-word sentence with no filler, and the distinguishing qualifiers are front-loaded immediately after the verb.
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?
Adequate but thin for a motion command: it omits blocking behavior, preconditions (enable_motion), and failure/collision semantics. No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden for return behavior and does not address it.
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 100%: heading_deg already documents its zero reference and clockwise direction, and speed_percent documents its scale. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax, units, or the speed/heading interaction, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'spin on the spot to face an absolute heading'. The qualifiers 'on the spot' (rotation without translation) and 'absolute' (world-referenced rather than relative) implicitly separate it from siblings like turn and go_to, though no sibling is named.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'absolute heading' suggests using this instead of a relative turn, and 'on the spot' suggests using it instead of go_to. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of prerequisites such as enable_motion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.