hwcontract

capture_ws2812

Measure WS2812 data line pulse widths (T0H/T1H) via sigrok to verify timing against hardware contracts.

Instructions

Capture the WS2812 data line via sigrok and return measured pulse-width observations (T0H/T1H/...).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "capture_ws2812"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`driver`	No
`channel`	No
`samples`	No
`samplerate`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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 that the tool captures data and returns observations, implying a read-only operation. However, it lacks explicit safety details, prerequisites (e.g., sigrok setup, hardware requirements), and possible side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and purpose. It avoids redundancy and every part contributes meaning, making it highly concise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for the agent to fully understand how to use the tool. It does not explain parameter semantics, return format details (units, structure), or any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameter details. The parameter names (driver, channel, samples, samplerate) are self-explanatory to some extent, but the absence of units, allowed values, or relationships means the agent gains no additional meaning from the description.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: capturing the WS2812 data line via sigrok and returning measured pulse-width observations (T0H/T1H/...). The verb 'Capture' and specific resource (WS2812 data line) distinguish it from sibling tools like check_ws2812 which likely validate rather than capture raw data.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives a clear context: use this when you need to capture WS2812 signals for pulse-width analysis. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the specific context (capture vs. check/judge) implies a distinct use case, earning a score slightly below 5.

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

Deploy Server