Loads an SVD file to parse STM32 peripheral registers during GDB debugging, enabling structured register inspection for the active target or named session.
Loads an SVD file for peripheral parsing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | No | Optional debug-session name. Omit for the default target. | |
| filepath | Yes | Path to the .svd file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state without being read-only or repeatable. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it doesn't say the loaded SVD is attached to the session, what happens to a previously loaded SVD, or how invalid/missing files are handled.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is the root of the gaps noted in other dimensions rather than a structural flaw.
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 non-read-only state-mutating tool with no output schema, the description omits what the load actually affects (session-scoped vs global), persistence across sessions, and failure behavior. An agent cannot tell from this text alone how the operation changes system state.
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 100%, with both 'session' and 'filepath' documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema (e.g., path resolution rules or what the default target means).
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?
States a specific verb (Loads) and resource (SVD file) plus the downstream purpose (peripheral parsing), which is more informative than a bare 'load' label. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling loaders like load_symbols or load_device_pack, so an agent must infer which loader applies.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The phrase 'for peripheral parsing' only weakly implies it should precede read_peripheral_register/decode_peripheral_register, and nothing tells the agent how it relates to load_device_pack or load_symbols.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.