Publish, echo, capture, or stream ROS 2 topics, call services, and send action goals through CoppeliaSim's ROS 2 Humble runtime.
Publish, echo, capture, or stream ROS 2 topics, call services, or send action goals through CoppeliaSim ROS 2 Humble runtime.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| rate | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| payload | No | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| duration | No | ||
| payloads | No | ||
| operation | Yes | ||
| feedback_type | No | ||
| feedback_topic | No | ||
| interface_type | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies side effects by mentioning publish, capture, and send action goals, but it does not disclose blocking behavior, timeout semantics, rate limits, runtime prerequisites, or failure modes for a multi-modal ROS 2 interface.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally efficient. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 11 parameters and multiple operation modes, so conciseness comes at the cost of necessary detail.
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?
This is a complex 11-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, yet the description provides only a broad list of ROS 2 interaction categories. It leaves operation values, parameter roles, return behavior, and safety/blocking characteristics entirely unspecified.
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 0% across 11 parameters, and the description does not mention any parameter names or meanings. Critical parameters such as operation, name, interface_type, rate, count, payload, duration, and feedback_topic are left completely undocumented beyond bare titles.
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 specific verbs (publish, echo, capture, stream, call, send) and resources (ROS 2 topics, services, action goals) within the CoppeliaSim ROS 2 Humble runtime. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling coppelia_ros2_status, so an agent cannot tell when this tool is preferred over status.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, including the closely named coppelia_ros2_status sibling. The description also does not clarify which operation to choose for a given task or mention prerequisites for interacting with the ROS 2 runtime.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.