Clear event registers and error queue on a Rigol MHO98 oscilloscope to reset status and remove stale errors before new measurements.
Send *CLS: clear event registers and error queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does state what gets destroyed (event registers and error queue are cleared), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether this affects instrument operation state, whether the error queue is permanently lost, or the effect on related status structures.
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 zero waste. The verb and effect are stated immediately and the SCPI mnemonic is included compactly.
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 tool with an output schema, the description needn't explain return values. The main gap is the lack of guidance on when to use this versus reset or get_errors, and limited behavioral detail about side effects on instrument 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?
Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds the SCPI mnemonic *CLS, which is helpful context beyond the empty schema, though there are no parameters to document.
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+resource: clearing event registers and error queue via the *CLS SCPI command. This distinguishes it from siblings like reset, self_test, and get_errors, though the description doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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 versus alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to call clear_status versus reset or get_status, nor when clearing is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.