Read proximity, vision RGB, metric depth, force/torque, or sampled vision point-cloud data from typed sensor paths to retrieve simulation sensor readings.
Read selected proximity, vision RGB, metric depth, force/torque, or sampled vision point-cloud data from typed sensor paths.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sensors | 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 a read-only operation through the verb 'Read' but does not disclose permissions, error handling, units, ordering, snapshot semantics, or behavior for missing/invalid sensor paths. It adds the useful detail that paths are typed and that multiple data modalities are supported, but this falls short of the transparency needed for a sensor-reading tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 wasted words, efficiently naming the action and the data categories. It could be slightly clearer or more structured, but it is appropriately sized for the tool's surface.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a complex array-of-objects parameter with zero schema description coverage, the description leaves major gaps. It does not explain the shape of sensor entries, return format, units, or selection semantics, so an agent would need to inspect external documentation to call it reliably.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single required parameter, an array of objects, and the description does not compensate by explaining the object shape, required fields, or how to specify a typed sensor path. It adds only the high-level notion of 'typed sensor paths' and data-type categories, which is insufficient to invoke the tool correctly without inspecting undocumented nested objects.
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 a specific verb, 'Read', and a clear resource: sensor data from typed sensor paths. It enumerates supported data types (proximity, vision RGB, metric depth, force/torque, point-cloud), making the tool's purpose distinguishable, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as coppelia_signals.
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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'read selected ... data' implies a selective read but does not tell the agent under what circumstances to choose coppelia_sensors over related tools like coppelia_signals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.