Fetch a specific DUT variable value using its full path, giving agents direct access to IC-CAP measurement data for analysis.
Get a DUT variable value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| var_path | Yes | Full path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure, but it only states that it 'gets' a value. It does not mention error behavior, return format, side effects, or prerequisites. The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation, but substantial behavioral information is missing.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and easy to parse, though its brevity sacrifices depth needed for behavioral clarity.
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?
For a simple getter with one documented parameter, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no mention of return value format or failure behavior, the agent lacks important details for confidently invoking the tool.
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 coverage is 100% with var_path described as 'Full path'. The description adds no additional meaning about path syntax, expected format, or value type, so it does not exceed the baseline provided by the 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 operation ('Get') and the specific resource ('DUT variable value'). This distinguishes it from dvar_set and dvar_create, but it does not explicitly contrast it with other getter siblings like svar_get or object_get_val, making the differentiation implicit rather than explicit.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling getters (svar_get, mvar_get, object_get_val), the description offers no selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.