Retrieve the full read-only configuration of a Viaris charger, including device details, power limits, SPL mode, solar, LEDs, and OCPP/Modbus/MQTT settings.
Full read-only configuration: device, power limits, SPL mode, solar, LEDs, and under "readOnly" OCPP, Modbus and MQTT, which can only be changed from the web interface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| charger | No | Charger name. Unnecessary if only one is configured. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only and mentions that changes are not possible through this tool, indicating no side effects. It does not discuss error conditions or permission requirements, but the core behavioral trait is disclosed.
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 description is somewhat verbose and contains clunky phrasing, especially the section about 'under "readOnly" OCPP, Modbus and MQTT'. It could be streamlined to 'Full read-only configuration: device, power limits, SPL mode, solar, LEDs, and read-only OCPP, Modbus, and MQTT settings (changeable only via the web interface).'
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?
The description lists the main categories of configuration returned (device, power limits, SPL mode, solar, LEDs, and network protocols) and explains the read-only constraint. It does not describe the output structure, but for a configuration fetcher this is acceptable given no output schema is provided.
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 single parameter 'charger' is well-described: it is the charger name and is explicitly noted as unnecessary when only one is configured. This fully clarifies the optional nature and purpose of the parameter.
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 clearly states this tool retrieves the full configuration (device, power limits, etc.) and is read-only, distinguishing it from the status and setting tools. However, the phrasing 'and under "readOnly" OCPP, Modbus and MQTT' is slightly awkward and could be interpreted ambiguously.
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 explicitly notes the configuration is read-only and that changes can only be made via the web interface, which guides agents not to use this tool for modifications. It does not explicitly state when to use it, but the read-only nature is a clear context clue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.