Writes a value to a specified memory address in an STM32 debug session, letting you patch firmware memory and test changes during hardware debugging.
Writes a value to a specific memory address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | Value to write, e.g., '0xFF' or '1234'. | |
| address | Yes | Hex address to write to, e.g., '0x20000000'. | |
| session | No | Optional debug-session name. Omit for the default target. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing further: it doesn't state that existing memory is overwritten, whether the write is verified, or any failure behavior. For a destructive hardware write, this is a meaningful gap beyond what annotations provide.
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 wasted words. Efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.
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 destructive memory-mutation tool with no output schema, the description should address write confirmation, alignment/addressing constraints, or guarded alternatives like write_guard. None are mentioned, leaving the definition incomplete for a low-level write operation.
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%, so address, value, and session are fully documented in the schema with format examples. The description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Clear specific verb+resource: 'Writes a value to a specific memory address.' An agent understands it mutates target memory. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like typed_memory (typed writes) or write_guard (guarded writes), so scope against alternatives is unstated.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives. With read_memory, typed_memory, and write_guard as siblings, the description never indicates which to choose, when writes are unsafe, or whether verification is needed. Pure absence of guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.