Establish a VISA session to a Rigol MHO98 oscilloscope over TCP or USB, enabling SCPI control and data acquisition.
Connect to the oscilloscope.
resource defaults to MHO98_RESOURCE env or the built-in default
(TCPIP0::169.254.112.67::5555::SOCKET). USB example:
USB0::0x1AB3::0x****::DSN********::INSTR
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource | No |
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 mentions a default resource fallback but omits whether the connection is persistent, what happens on failure, whether reconnection is needed, or how it relates to the sibling 'disconnect' and 'list_resources'. Significant gaps for a state-establishing call.
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?
Terse and front-loaded: the action sentence comes first, then the default behavior, then an example. No filler, though the example could be integrated more cleanly.
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 connection-establishment tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should say more about lifecycle (persistence, failure behavior, relation to disconnect). What's present is helpful but incomplete.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the default resolution order (MHO98_RESOURCE env then built-in TCPIP default) and supplies a concrete USB VISA example, which is genuinely useful. However it doesn't document expected VISA resource-string syntax beyond the example or other transports.
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 (Connect) and resource (the oscilloscope), and the sibling list confirms 'disconnect' as its opposite. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from other connection-adjacent siblings like smb_connect, but the scope is clear.
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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no mention that it should precede other SCPI operations, and no guidance on prerequisites. Only the resource-string format is explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.