Retrieve raw serial log lines for a specified date, using line offset and limit to page through captured UART data.
Page through one day's raw log file by line offset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD (default today) | |
| port | No | Serial port name, e.g. COM5 or /dev/ttyUSB0 | |
| limit | No | Max lines (default 200) | |
| offset | No | First line to return (0-based) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds scoping to a single day and offset-based traversal, but it does not disclose line ordering, behavior at the end of the file, or how to interpret the returned lines.
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 a single 11-word sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. It earns its place and does not duplicate schema content.
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 tool is low-complexity and the schema covers all parameters and defaults. The main gap is that, with no output schema, the description does not explicitly state the return format, though 'page through' strongly implies a list of raw log lines.
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?
All four parameters are fully described in the schema, so the baseline applies. The description's 'one day's' and 'line offset' only echo the date and offset parameters without adding new format, constraint, or interplay information.
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 uses a specific verb ('Page through'), a concrete resource ('one day's raw log file'), and a clear mechanism ('by line offset'). This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like serial_get_recent or serial_read 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?
The paging and raw-log phrasing imply this is for reviewing historical log data, especially when older lines are needed. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or name any alternative such as serial_get_recent for tail-style retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.