List all built-in protocol decoder plugins available in KingstVIS, including UART, I2C, SPI, CAN, and more. Quickly identify supported decoders for offline analysis.
All built-in decoder plugins shipped with KingstVIS (46 on 3.6.6): PWM, UART, I2C, SPI, CAN(-FD), USB1.1/USB-PD, SWD, JTAG, Modbus, 1-Wire, DHT12, DMX512, LIN, MDIO, Midi, RGB-WS28xx, SMBus, Wiegand ...
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses scope (built-in plugins, version-specific count of 46) and implies a read-only listing. It stops short of describing output format or ordering, making this adequate but not rich.
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 where every part earns its place: scope, version context, and concrete examples. No filler or repetition.
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-argument listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the returned set and gives representative members. The main gap is a precise statement of the return type and an explicit contrast with list_analyzers.
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 input schema has zero properties, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed for a call with no arguments.
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 and resource: enumerates all built-in decoder plugins shipped with KingstVIS. The 'built-in' qualifier and the plugin-vs-analyzer distinction separate it from list_analyzers, and the concrete examples make the domain unambiguous.
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 on when to use this tool instead of list_analyzers or other siblings. The description does not provide a use case (e.g., before configuring an analyzer) or exclusions (e.g., this does not list currently configured analyzers).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.