Turn a Keil UV4 build log into structured errors, warnings, and a build summary to quickly identify and fix compilation issues.
Parse a UV4 build log into structured errors/warnings (blueprint §7.2).
Args: log_path: path to build log file, OR log_content: raw log text Returns: {errors[], warnings[], summary{success, errors, warnings, code_size, ...}}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| log_path | No | ||
| log_content | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It signals a read-only transformation by saying 'Parse', and it discloses both supported input modes and the shape of the returned object. It does not cover edge cases like both arguments being supplied or neither being supplied, but these are parameter-level concerns rather than hidden behavioral traits.
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 compact and well-organized: a one-line purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant restatement of the input schema.
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 low-complexity parser with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it specifies the two input modes, the overall return structure, and the key summary fields. The trailing '...' leaves some return details unspecified, but this does not prevent an agent from selecting or invoking the tool correctly.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that log_path is a file path and log_content is raw log text, and it uses 'OR' to indicate that they are alternative sources. This is meaningful semantic guidance beyond the bare schema titles.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a UV4 build log'. It clearly states the output is 'structured errors/warnings', and the included return shape distinguishes this from sibling tools like build_project or explain_build_error. The blueprint reference adds useful specification context.
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 description gives a clear usage context: invoke this when a UV4 build log needs to be turned into structured error/warning data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the unique parsing role among the siblings makes the intended usage reasonably unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.