Set a DUT parameter value by providing its parameter path and numeric value. Directly modify device parameters in IC-CAP projects to adjust model settings for simulations.
Set a DUT parameter value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | ||
| minvalmax | No | Value | |
| param_path | Yes | e.g. '/model/dut/PARAM_NAME' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only repeats the tool's name. It does not mention side effects, whether the parameter must already exist, persistence, or return value. The single sentence adds no behavioral insight beyond the tool name.
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 efficient sentence with no fluff. It is concise and front-loaded, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than purposeful economy.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation. The description does not explain the behavior, prerequisites, or return values, making it insufficient for an agent to call correctly in the presence of many similar setter tools.
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 only 33% (param_path has an example; value and minvalmax have no description). The description 'Set a DUT parameter value' minimally implies that 'value' is the value to set, but it does nothing to clarify the mysterious 'minvalmax' parameter. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 identifies a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('a DUT parameter value'), making the tool's basic function clear. However, it does not distinguish dpar_set from many similar sibling setters like mpar_set, dvar_set, or svar_set, so it misses the differentiation needed for a 5.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling setter tools (mpar_set, dvar_set, svar_set, ivar_set). The description only states what it does, not when it is the appropriate choice, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.