Check the current connection state of your MicroPython board to see if Thonny is open, connected, or using direct serial, and whether user approval is needed.
How the board is reached right now: Thonny open/connected (interpreter, port, state, whether the user must approve actions) or direct serial. Call it first when unsure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the status report includes and implies a read-only diagnostic action, but it does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or what happens when no board is connected.
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 front-loaded sentence that packs the key purpose, the reported details, and a usage recommendation without wasted words. The phrasing is slightly awkward, but every element earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, low-complexity status tool, the description is adequate: it names the connection modes (Thonny or direct serial) and the reported details. There is no output schema, but the description covers what the agent needs to decide to call the tool; it could add a note on failure indicators.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not clarify inputs. It adds value by describing what sort of information the tool returns, which is the only semantic content an agent needs 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 states that the tool reports how the board is currently reached, listing concrete details (interpreter, port, state, action-approval requirement). This is a clear diagnostic-resource statement, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'info' tool.
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 gives a direct usage cue: 'Call it first when unsure.' This tells an agent when to invoke it, though it does not specify when not to use it or name alternative tools for different connection questions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.