read_setupA served setup sheet (setup.json, files included; never a solution): board, components and wires (circuit), probes, levels (without their hints: hints come through read_simulation as the visitor reveals them). Plus, when it exists, schema.png, the starting circuit as the editor draws it, as an image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the setup is never a solution, that levels are returned without hints, where hints are exposed, and that schema.png is included only when it exists.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that packs in all relevant content details without wasted sentences. It is somewhat dense and parenthetical, but every clause adds useful information about what is returned.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the returned content and the important exception around hints and optional images. The main remaining gap is the unexplained 'id' parameter.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter is only named 'id'. The description never clarifies that this is a setup identifier, what form it takes, or where to find it. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.
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 clearly identifies the resource as a served setup sheet and enumerates its contents (board, components, wires, probes, levels, schema.png), so the agent knows what it returns. However, it opens with a noun phrase rather than a verb and does not explicitly differentiate this tool from list_setups or other setup-related siblings.
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?
Usage is implied: read a setup sheet to obtain its circuit and levels. The description helpfully notes that hints are not included and come through read_simulation instead, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over list_setups or how to obtain the required setup id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.