Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
robotarm

robotarm

by walcorg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_workcell

Retrieves workcell station IDs, labels, and reachable stations for each robotic hand, helping planners choose valid object-transfer locations.

Instructions

Stations (id and label) and which stations each hand can reach.

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": "get_workcell"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only hints at return content. It does not state that this is a read-only/side-effect-free query, whether the data is live or static configuration, whether it can fail, or how reachability is expressed. For a zero-annotation tool that is a meaningful gap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is a telegraphic fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of what the tool does. Brevity here shades into under-specification rather than efficiency.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), so the description is the only place return values can be explained, and it does partially do that. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the exact shape of the station/reachability data and the read-only nature unspecified.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning to add. The description does not introduce any spurious argument concepts.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names the resource contents — stations with id and label, plus per-hand reachability — so an agent can infer this is a read of the workcell layout. But it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_scene, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when to call this versus get_scene, no prerequisites, no indication of whether it must be called before planning a pick/place. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the sibling list.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools