Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
uni-t-uts-mcp

uni-t-uts-mcp

by Reid-n0rc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

select_instrument_module

Switch the active measurement function module (SA, EMI, or AD) on a UNI-T UTS analyzer and read back the selected module.

Instructions

Switch the active measurement function module (SA/EMI/AD) and read it back. Does not restore the previous module afterwards - the caller chose this switch; call it again with the module you want back when done. Warns (not an error) if the module did not change: on this firmware an unlicensed module is refused silently with no SCPI error, which this tool cannot distinguish from a link glitch. The front-panel lock is unaffected by this call beyond the usual: see docs/verified-hardware.md, 'Front-panel lock'.

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": {
      "module": "<module>"
    },
    "name": "select_instrument_module"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
moduleYesModule to select: sa (spectrum analyzer), emi, or ad (analog demodulation)
instrumentNoWhich instrument to use (a name from list_instruments). Default: the `default` instrument, or the only one configured

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With only readOnlyHint=false supplied, the description carries real behavioral weight: it discloses the non-restoring side effect, that a no-change outcome produces a warning rather than an error, and a firmware quirk where an unlicensed module is refused silently and is indistinguishable from a link glitch. It also points to documented front-panel lock behavior, which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot provide.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the subsequent sentences each carry distinct, non-redundant information (restore behavior, warning semantics, front-panel lock pointer). It is dense but every clause earns its place; only the doc-file reference is slightly indirect.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, failure modes, and safety context thoroughly. It does not state what the read-back returns (a module identifier string, presumably), which is the one remaining gap for a tool whose name promises a read-back.

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%, and the enum already documents sa/emi/ad plus the instrument parameter with its default resolution. The description restates the module set but adds no formatting, defaulting, or selection nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The first sentence states a specific verb (switch), a specific resource (active measurement function module), and enumerates the valid modules (SA/EMI/AD). 'And read it back' implicitly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling get_instrument_module, though that sibling is never named explicitly, leaving a small differentiation gap.

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 clear usage context: this is a state-changing switch, state is not restored, and the caller should call again with the desired module to restore it. It does not explicitly say 'use get_instrument_module if you only want to read the current module', which would make the routing guidance complete.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools