Stop ISM band scanning and return radio control to Python.
Stop ISM band scanning and return the radio to Python control
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": "ism_stop_scanning"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait beyond the name: the radio is returned to Python control, indicating device state after the call. It says nothing about whether the call is idempotent, whether it errors when no scan is running, or whether in-flight buffers are preserved or discarded.
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?
A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the resulting state attached. There is no filler and nothing an agent must read past to get the operative verb.
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 teardown tool with no output schema or annotations, this covers what the tool does and the state it leaves the hardware in. The only material omission is behavior when no scan is active, which matters given the radio-state implications.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no schema semantics to add and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed to select the scan to stop.
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 a specific verb and resource — 'Stop ISM band scanning' — and adds the post-condition 'return the radio to Python control', which distinguishes it from the paired ism_start_scanning sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or clarifying it is the inverse of ism_start_scanning, so it is clear but not fully differentiated by name.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it is the teardown counterpart to ism_start_scanning, but the description never says 'call this after ism_start_scanning' or names any alternative. There is no guidance on what happens if scanning is not active, which is the main selection ambiguity for a stop tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.