Write raw bytes to a serial session via hex or text input, with audited writes for hardware control.
Write raw bytes (audited). Provide exactly one of hex ('01 A0 FF') or text (control chars as-is, e.g. "AT\r\n").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hex | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the write/destructive profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new trait, '(audited)', indicating the write is logged. It does not disclose return behavior, error handling, or whether the write is blocking.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the input-format rules. Every clause earns its place; the examples are the minimum needed to convey format.
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 low-complexity 3-param tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers input format adequately. It is still missing sibling differentiation and any note on failure/return behavior, which an agent writing raw bytes would benefit from.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for two of three params: it explains hex format ('01 A0 FF'), text semantics (control chars passed as-is, with an 'AT\r\n' example), and the mutual-exclusivity constraint that the schema does not encode. session_id remains undocumented.
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 verb+resource ('Write raw bytes'), which cleanly separates it from read/request siblings in the same family. It never says what it writes to (a session/serial port), relying on the session_id param and sibling context to imply the target.
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?
Gives a parameter-selection rule ('exactly one of hex or text') but no guidance on when to use send versus request, run_command, or run_workflow. An agent gets no routing help for choosing this tool over its write-capable siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.