Parse raw HEX responses offline by matching them against YAML protocol action definitions to extract structured data.
Parse a raw HEX response against a YAML protocol action definition (offline).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| raw_hex | No | ||
| protocol | Yes | ||
| input_file | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds the useful offline/no-device-connection trait. It does not disclose error behavior, how input_file vs raw_hex is resolved, or output shape, though with safe annotations this is acceptable but not rich.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds semantic value, and the important 'offline' context is placed in parentheses without bloating the text.
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 schema has four undocumented parameters and no output schema, and the description leaves input_file unaddressed and never states what result is returned. For an agent to invoke it correctly, it needs to know whether it must pass raw_hex or input_file and what the parsed output looks like.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies raw_hex as the hex response and protocol/action as selecting a YAML definition/action, but it does not explain input_file's role or the relationship between raw_hex and input_file. Meaning is partial.
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 names a specific operation (Parse), a concrete input (raw HEX response), and a resource (YAML protocol action definition), with the 'offline' qualifier distinguishing it from the live serial siblings. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.
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?
'Offline' implies it is for parsing captured data rather than live serial traffic, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use wording and no named alternative tools. Usage context is present but left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.