Move a linear rail to a named or numeric position, then wait for the move to complete before running the next step.
Move linear rail to a position and wait for completion. Simple command-based control.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| position | No | Named position to move to | |
| wait_seconds | No | Seconds to wait after move command | |
| position_number | No | Or specify numeric position (mm) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose that the tool blocks until motion is complete, which is useful behavioral context. But it omits whether the move is absolute or relative, what happens on failure or timeout, whether the position becomes occupied, and how the wait_seconds interacts with actual completion.
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?
Two short sentences with no wasted words and the action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the phrase 'Simple command-based control' is somewhat redundant filler.
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 motion-control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum address safety implications of moving hardware, error behavior, and interaction between wait_seconds and the natural completion wait. These are absent, leaving significant operational gaps.
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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter and its enum values. The description adds no syntax, units, or behavioral nuance beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a clear verb (move) and resource (linear rail), and adds behavioral detail (waits for completion) that distinguishes this from a fire-and-forget move command. However, with no siblings to differentiate against and no mention of the rail's role in the broader system, it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative that might not wait, nor does it explain prerequisites such as whether the rail must be homed first. 'Simple command-based control' is too vague to function as usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.