Execute a local Python script directly on a MicroPython board without saving it to the device, using a project-relative path and optional timeout.
Run a .py file from the computer on the board without saving it there (path relative to the project directory). Default timeout 30 s.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| timeout | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral details: the file is not saved to the board, the path is project-relative, and the timeout defaults to 30 seconds. However, it does not disclose side effects of executing arbitrary code, output behavior, or how timeout interacts with execution.
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 entire description is one sentence, front-loaded with the core action and followed by necessary qualifiers. It is compact, readable, and contains no filler.
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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the key invocation details: what file to run, where the path is relative, that it is not saved, and the default timeout. It omits guidance on execution side effects and output, but given the low complexity it is adequately complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'path' by specifying it is relative to the project directory and clarifies 'timeout' with a default unit and value. This is helpful but does not fully describe timeout semantics or other constraints.
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 uses a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('.py file'), and a precise mode ('from the computer on the board without saving it there'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like exec or start by emphasizing that the file is not persisted on the board.
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 context is clear: use this tool to execute a Python file from the project directory without saving it to the board. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the stated scope is sufficient for most selection scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.