Reads current Betaflight filter settings, including gyro and D-term lowpass, notches, dynamic notch, RPM filter, and yaw lowpass. Use it to inspect filter configuration before tuning.
Configuration des filtres, noms CLI : lowpass gyro/D-term statiques et dynamiques (types PT1/BIQUAD/PT2/PT3), notches, dyn notch, filtre RPM, yaw_lowpass_hz
| 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 clear. The description adds useful context by enumerating the filter configuration categories returned (e.g., notches, RPM filter), but does not disclose behavioral details like authentication needs, rate limits, or response format beyond what annotations provide.
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 concise phrase that front-loads the core purpose and then lists specific filter categories. It is appropriately sized, though the fragment structure lacks a verb and could be slightly more polished.
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 input parameters or output schema, the description should convey what the tool returns. It lists the relevant filter settings and CLI names, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the return content. However, it could more explicitly state that it returns the current configuration values.
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 accepts zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema is empty and fully described by default.
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 tool name and description clearly indicate retrieval of filter configuration, with a detailed list of included filter settings and CLI names. However, the description does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like set_filter_config or get_advanced_config, leaving some ambiguity about scope relative to alternatives.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.