Check whether the installed CoppeliaSim simROS2 plugin loads without starting ROS 2 or altering the scene. Use it to verify ROS 2 plugin availability before running simulations.
Check whether the installed CoppeliaSim simROS2 plugin loads. This tool does not start ROS 2 or alter the scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| headless | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key safety traits: read-only in effect, no scene mutation, no ROS 2 startup. It stops short of describing what a failure looks like (returned error, exception, boolean) or whether the tool spins up a simulator instance at all, which the 'headless' parameter hints at.
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, the purpose first and the scope disclaimer second. No filler, nothing to trim.
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 simple one-parameter status check with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and what is not done. It is incomplete on the one thing the schema leaves blank — the meaning and side effects of 'headless' — and on what a positive/negative result looks like.
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% and the single parameter 'headless' (default false) is never mentioned in the description. An agent cannot tell whether headless=true launches a GUI-less simulator process or merely affects how the plugin check is performed, which is a meaningful behavioral difference left undocumented.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Check whether the installed CoppeliaSim simROS2 plugin loads' tells the agent exactly what is being verified. It partially differentiates itself from the sibling coppelia_ros2 by disclaiming that it does not start ROS 2, but it never names that sibling or describes how the two relate.
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?
'This tool does not start ROS 2 or alter the scene' is a useful exclusion that implies coppelia_ros2 is the tool for actually starting the bridge. However, no alternative is named and no precondition is given (e.g., run this before coppelia_ros2 to verify the plugin is installed).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.