get_observationRetrieve the robot's current pose, velocity, sensor readings, face display, and simulation status from the 2D simulator so agents can monitor state before deciding or acting.
Current robot pose (x, y, heading_deg), velocity, every enabled sensor reading, face display state, plus simulation status (running, autopilot, power, lamp position).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that this is a full snapshot covering sim status as well as robot state, which is modestly useful context, but it says nothing about freshness/latency or whether sensors not enabled are omitted (it only implies 'every enabled sensor').
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with pose (the most commonly needed value), then velocity, sensors, display, and sim status. Every clause names a distinct returned field; 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?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does so reasonably completely for a snapshot getter. Minor gaps: the shape of individual sensor readings and whether large sensor sets make the response heavy are 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description's field list is the return-value payload, not parameter semantics.
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?
States a specific resource ('current robot pose ... velocity, sensor readings, face display state, simulation status'), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as read_sensors, connection_status, or get_head, which also expose parts of this state.
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 call this versus read_sensors (subset of sensor data) or connection_status (simulation status). The description only implies usage through the enumeration of returned fields, leaving the agent to infer selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.