MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ROSBag MCP Server: Analyzing Robot Data with LLMs for Agentic Embodied AI Applications

2025· article· en· W7131119934 on OpenAlexaff
Lei Fu, Sahar Salimpour, Leonardo Militano, Harry Edelman, Jorge Peña Queralta, Giovanni Toffetti

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoboticsRobotKey (lock)Applications of artificial intelligenceEmbodied cognitionBenchmarkingContext (archaeology)Intersection (aeronautics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agentic AI systems and Physical or Embodied AI systems have been two key research verticals at the forefront of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, with Model Context Protocol (MCP) increasingly becoming a key component and enabler of agentic applications. However, the literature at the intersection of these verticals, i.e., Agentic Embodied AI, remains scarce. This paper introduces an MCP server for analyzing ROS and ROS2 bags, allowing for analyzing, visualizing and processing robot data with natural language through LLMs and VLMs. We describe specific tooling built with robotics domain knowledge, with our initial release focused on mobile robotics and supporting natively the analysis of trajectories, laser scan data, transforms, or time series data. This is in addition to providing an interface to standard ROS2 CLI tools (ros2 bag list or ros2 bag info), as well as the ability to filter bags with a subset of topics or trimmed in time. Coupled with the MCP server, we provide a lightweight UI that allows the benchmarking of the tooling with different LLMs, both proprietary (Anthropic, OpenAI) and open-source (through Groq). Our experimental results include the analysis of tool calling capabilities of eight different state-of-the-art LLM/VLM models, both proprietary and open-source, large and small. Our experiments indicate that there is a large divide in tool calling capabilities, with Kimi K2 and Claude Sonnet 4 demonstrating clearly superior performance. We also conclude that there are multiple factors affecting the success rates, from the tool description schema to the number of arguments, as well as the number of tools available to the models. The code is available with a permissive license at https://github.com/binabik-ai/mcp-rosbags.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207