Read flight controller status over MSP to check cycle time, active sensors, arming flags, and CPU load. Use it to diagnose FC health before tuning or arming.
État général du FC : cycle time, capteurs actifs, flags arming, charge CPU
| 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. The description adds that the response is an aggregate status including cycle time and CPU load, but says nothing about refresh cadence, cost, or whether values are instantaneous vs averaged.
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?
One front-loaded fragment — the subject ("État général du FC") comes first, followed by a colon and a terse list of the fields returned. No filler, no redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and the field list (cycle time, sensors, arming flags, CPU load) does that adequately. A note that it is a snapshot rather than a historical series would complete it, but nothing essential is missing.
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 and the empty schema leaves nothing to document, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no argument syntax for the description to clarify.
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?
States a specific resource ("FC") and scope ("État général") plus the concrete fields returned — cycle time, active sensors, arming flags, CPU load. This distinguishes it from narrower siblings like get_sensor_config or get_board_info by signalling an aggregate snapshot, though it never names those alternatives to sharpen the contrast.
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?
The enumerated contents imply this is the broad 'what is the FC doing right now' call, which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to any sibling such as get_imu_data or get_advanced_config for deeper detail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.