Inspect FATEK .ldr ladder-logic files by reading framing, raw bytes, offsets, and CRC validity without altering originals. Read paths are workspace-scoped.
Inspect framing, raw bytes, offsets and CRC validity. Read paths are workspace-scoped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that paths are resolved within a workspace scope — but says nothing about output size, binary/raw content, or failure behavior when CRC checks fail.
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?
Two short sentences, purpose first and scoping constraint second, with no filler. Both sentences carry information an agent can act on.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; for a one-parameter read tool the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation, which matters given read_ldr and validate_ladder sit alongside it.
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 single 'path' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'Read paths are workspace-scoped' hints that the path is resolved within a workspace, which is more than the empty schema provides, but it omits any format or relative-vs-absolute detail, leaving the semantics only half-specified.
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 gives a specific verb (Inspect) plus the concrete aspects examined: framing, raw bytes, offsets, and CRC validity. That is far more informative than the bare name, but it does not disambiguate from siblings such as read_ldr or validate_ladder, whose territory (reading, validating) overlaps with what is described here.
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 only guidance offered is 'Read paths are workspace-scoped', which is a constraint rather than a when-to-use rule. With read_ldr and validate_ladder as siblings, the description never says when inspection is preferable to simply reading or validating the file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.