siglent-sdg-mcp

get_arbitrary_wave

Read-only

Retrieve the current arbitrary waveform selection for a channel, including its index and name, to verify or reuse the active waveform.

Instructions

Get the current arbitrary waveform selection for a channel. Returns the waveform index and name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "channel": "<channel>"
    },
    "name": "get_arbitrary_wave"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`channel`	Yes	Channel to query

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.4Nov 14, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating call, so the description only needs to add context. It does add value by naming the return payload (index and name), but says nothing about behavior when no arbitrary waveform is selected or whether the selection is hardware-cached vs. persisted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the return content. No filler, no restatement of the name, nothing extraneous.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, naming the returned fields covers the main gap an agent would face. The only omission is the not-configured edge case, which is minor at this complexity level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single enum-constrained parameter ('Channel to query'), so the schema fully documents the input. The description's phrase 'for a channel' adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is expected at full coverage and yields the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Get') plus a precisely scoped resource ('current arbitrary waveform selection for a channel') and pins the returned data ('waveform index and name'). This clearly separates it from the write-side sibling set_arbitrary_wave and from get_basic_wave, which targets a different waveform family.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by 'Get the current ... selection', which signals a read/query operation. It never says when to prefer this over scpi_query or how it relates to set_arbitrary_wave, and there are no preconditions or exclusions stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.