Measure digital signal metrics from a parsed capture for one channel: edge counts, frequency, duty cycle, pulse width stats, and activity timing.
Offline digital measurements for one channel of a parsed capture: edge counts, frequency (median rising period), duty cycle, high/low pulse width stats (min/max/mean/median), first/last activity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes | ||
| npz_path | Yes |
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 behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is offline (not hardware-touching) and enumerates the exact measurements computed. It does not state return structure or error behavior, but for a read-oriented measurement tool this is adequate transparency.
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?
One dense sentence, front-loaded with scope ('one channel of a parsed capture') followed by a concrete, comma-separated list of outputs. No filler or redundant phrasing.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it computes and what input it needs. Minor omissions such as exact return format, npz_path provenance, and channel indexing convention keep it from being fully complete.
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 0%, but the description maps npz_path to a parsed capture and channel to the single channel to measure. It does not provide path format or channel-range details, yet for only two parameters the description adds enough meaning beyond the bare schema.
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: measure one channel of a parsed capture. The metric list (edge counts, frequency, duty cycle, pulse-width stats, first/last activity) makes the tool's function concrete and distinguishes it from live-capture or raw-command siblings.
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?
'Offline' and 'parsed capture' clearly position this tool as a post-parse analysis step, not a live device operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.