Lock a component in place or release it by setting its grounded status in an assembly, enabling precise control over component fixation.
Ground (lock in place) or unground a component occurrence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| grounded | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action. It does not mention side effects, reversibility, or how grounding interacts with other constraints. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is too brief for a non-trivial operation. It could be expanded to include necessary details without becoming verbose.
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?
Given no output schema and two parameters, the description does not specify return values, error handling, or what constitutes grounding. The openWorldHint annotation suggests external effects, but the description does not clarify.
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 input schema has two parameters with 0% description coverage. The tool description provides zero additional meaning for 'name' or 'grounded', forcing the agent to guess their semantics (e.g., what qualifies as a valid name, the effect of ungrounding).
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 verb 'ground' or 'unground' and the resource 'component occurrence', distinguishing it from sibling tools like fusion_move_component or fusion_joint. However, it does not explain that grounding fixes the component in space, which is a key concept.
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 like fusion_joint or fusion_rigid_group. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.