Read probe, filament monitor, analog temperature sensor, and endstop status as reported by Duet firmware. Use it to inspect extra sensors without changing machine state.
Extra sensors and gadgets: probes (e.g. BLTouch), filament monitors, analog temperature sensors and endstops, as the firmware reports them. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description merely restates 'Read-only' — no credit earned there. It adds almost nothing else: no note on whether values are live vs. cached, what happens when a sensor type is absent, or dynamic keys in the response. Given no output schema exists, the description leaves the return behavior largely undisclosed.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, and the sensor inventory is front-loaded. It loses a point only because the trailing 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation rather than adding information.
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 no-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should convey the shape of the returned sensor data (grouped by sensor type? firmware-reported names?) and clarify the boundary with get_endstops. Those gaps leave an agent guessing about the payload.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to explain parameter usage, and it introduces no misleading parameter hints.
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 names a specific resource set (probes such as BLTouch, filament monitors, analog temperature sensors, endstops) so an agent knows what category of data comes back. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, and it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_endstops, which the description itself lists as in-scope — a real ambiguity for tool selection.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer get_endstops, get_status or get_machine_info instead, and no prerequisites. The only directive-like content is 'Read-only', which is a property, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.