Read advanced Betaflight flight controller settings, including gyro/PID denominators, ESC protocol such as DSHOT, and PWM rate, to inspect configuration over USB serial.
Config avancée : dénominateurs gyro/PID, protocole ESC (DSHOT), PWM rate
| 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, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds only a topic list: it says nothing about whether the values reflect live FC state or the saved profile, whether missing values are omitted, or how the payload is shaped.
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?
It is a single terse fragment with no wasted words, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the space saved was spent on nothing that helps selection.
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 parameterless read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it tells the agent what subject matter comes back. It falls short on routing the agent among the many sibling config getters.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The content list is a bonus but is not required here.
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 the resource ('Config avancée') and enumerates the content it exposes (gyro/PID denominators, ESC/DSHOT protocol, PWM rate), so an agent can infer roughly what it returns. However, there is no verb, so it reads as a label rather than a statement that this tool *retrieves* the config, and it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_pid_advanced, get_filter_config or get_rates.
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 indication of when to call this tool versus the many overlapping config readers in the sibling list (get_pid_advanced, get_filter_config, get_rates). The agent is left to guess from the topic list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.