Retrieve current connection state, sample rate, and available sample rates from the logic analyzer to verify configuration before capture.
Connection state, sample rate and supported sample rates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists returned information but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, say what happens when the device is disconnected, or describe the response structure. The noun-phrase format implies a query but fails to disclose side-effect-free behavior or error handling.
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 compact, front-loaded list of exactly what the tool returns. Every word contributes information, and there is no fluff or repetition. It is highly concise while still conveying the tool's scope.
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 zero-parameter status getter, the description lists the key output categories and is largely complete. However, the lack of an output schema and any note about connection-dependent behavior leaves a small gap about what the agent should expect in edge cases, such as when not connected.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately adds no irrelevant parameter details.
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 enumerates the tool's output scope: connection state, sample rate, and supported sample rates. Though it lacks an explicit verb, the tool name 'get_status' supplies the action, making the purpose reasonably clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from its sibling getters get_sample_rate and get_supported_sample_rates, but the inclusion of 'connection state' gives it a distinct identity.
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 get_status versus the more specific sibling tools like get_sample_rate or get_supported_sample_rates. There is no mention of whether get_status should be preferred for one-stop status checks or avoided in favor of targeted getters, so an agent is left to infer usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.