Retrieve current roll, pitch, and yaw angles in degrees to determine device orientation. Use the output to monitor tilt or trigger orientation-based actions.
Read Euler angles (roll, pitch, yaw) in degrees.
Returns: Roll, pitch, and yaw angles in degrees
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Read' clearly implies a non-mutating operation and the return values are specified, but there is no mention of prerequisites like device connectivity, error behavior, or whether the reported values are live or cached.
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 first sentence is concise and informative, but the 'Returns' line largely repeats the same information already provided in the first sentence. The description is short, yet the redundancy means the second sentence does not fully earn its place.
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 no-argument read operation, the description gives the essential return information and units. However, it omits any usage context, such as whether a connected device is required, and it does not describe possible error conditions, leaving some uncertainty for an agent selecting or invoking the 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist and no parameter documentation is needed.
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 clearly states the action ('Read'), the resource ('Euler angles'), and the specific components ('roll, pitch, yaw') with units. It is specific enough to be distinguished from most siblings like read_temperature or read_quaternion, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from read_orientation.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_orientation or read_quaternion, and no conditions or exclusions are mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, leaving usage decisions entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.