Trigger a hardware reset on a specified embedded board by pulsing its DTR line, using the board ID to identify the target.
Trigger hardware reset on target board via DTR line pulse.
Args: board_id: The identifier of the board (e.g. 'board_a')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions the mechanism (DTR line pulse) but does not disclose potential side effects such as disconnection, state loss, or the need for subsequent reconnection. Given no annotations, the description carries full burden and falls short.
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 concise, using one sentence for the action and one for the parameter, with no unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 is adequate for a simple operation but lacks any mention of expected output, return behavior, or prerequisites. It covers the essential action and parameter but leaves some context unaddressed.
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 board_id parameter is clearly explained with an example ('board_a'), providing sufficient context for what the identifier refers to. This exceeds the bare schema.
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 the specific action: 'Trigger hardware reset on target board via DTR line pulse.' It identifies the resource (target board) and the mechanism, distinguishing it from other serial tools like write/read/exchange.
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?
No explicit 'when to use' guidance is provided, but the operation is distinct from siblings and self-evidently for hardware resets. The intended use is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.