Discover simulation worlds and their parameters, metrics, and example questions. Use this reference to plan robotics experiments.
The worlds the lab can simulate: what each one is and is not, every knob with unit and range, the metrics and which are better when higher, and example questions with the variants that answer them. Read this first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| world | No | one world id, else all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it does disclose the returned payload in detail: each world's capabilities and limits, knob units and ranges, metric directionality, and example questions with their answering variants. It does not state side-effect freedom or invocation cost, but for a read-only catalogue the content disclosure is the substance an agent needs.
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 content is packed into one dense sentence plus a two-word imperative, with no filler. The ordering is slightly suboptimal — "Read this first" would land harder at the front than at the end — but nothing is wasted.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating what the catalogue contains, so an agent knows what it will receive. It is complete for the task of orientation; only the read-only/side-effect status is left unstated.
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% and the single `world` parameter's semantics ("one world id, else all") are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about filtering or the id format, so the 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 clearly identifies the resource: a catalogue of the simulated worlds, their configuration knobs, metrics, and example questions. It is readily distinguishable from siblings like list_experiments or run_experiment, which deal with experiments rather than the world definitions themselves, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
"Read this first" gives an explicit sequencing instruction that tells the agent to consult this tool before acting on any sibling. It lacks any when-not guidance or explicit alternative routing, but the directive is strong and unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.