TimeSync MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_ros_topics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discovers ROS topics, message types, endpoints, QoS settings, and Header support through a distribution-matched Bridge to help diagnose timestamp and clock-alignment issues.

Instructions

Discover ROS topics/types, endpoints, QoS and Header support through the optional distribution-matched Bridge.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_ros_topics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Default
`data`	No
`error`	No
`source`	Yes
`status`	No	valid
`warnings`	No
`measurements`	No
`schema_version`	No	1.0
`observed_at_utc`	No
`measurement_kind`	No	observed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the "optional distribution-matched Bridge," but does not explain fallback behavior or what happens if the bridge is unavailable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence covers the main discovery targets with little waste. The phrase "optional distribution-matched Bridge" is slightly jargon-heavy and could be clearer, but the description remains appropriately concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description is largely complete for a read-only discovery tool. It covers topics, types, endpoints, QoS, and Header support, though it omits explicit routing guidance to sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 under the scoring rules. There are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond what the empty schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ("Discover") and names the resource facets (ROS topics/types, endpoints, QoS, Header support), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like inspect_ros_topic or compare_ros_topics, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 such as inspect_ros_topic for a single topic or compare_ros_topics. The discovery intent is implied, but no exclusions or routing conditions are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server