Discover nearby Coyote devices via Bluetooth. Returns address, name, and version for each device found.
扫描附近的 Coyote 设备。返回包含 address / name / version 的列表。
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": "scan"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeoutMs | No | 扫描时长（毫秒），默认 5000。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, or what happens if no devices are found. It only states the scan and return list, which is insufficient for full transparency.
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 description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and it clearly states the action and 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?
Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of sibling tools in a device control system, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the return fields (address, name, version), which compensates partially for the lack of output schema. However, it lacks details on error handling or edge cases.
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 coverage is 100% (timeoutMs parameter), so the description does not need to add parameter details. However, the description itself says nothing about the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states the tool scans nearby Coyote devices and returns a list with address, name, and version. It uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling tools like connect or start.
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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus others (e.g., before connecting) or any prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.