Read back an analog channel's configuration on a Rigol MHO98 oscilloscope. Use to verify settings like vertical scale, offset, and coupling before making changes.
Read back the configuration of an analog channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes |
| 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 only says 'read back configuration', omitting the essential context that this is a read-only operation, what happens on an invalid channel number, and how it differs from get_channel_full. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the tool's scope and safety profile are not disclosed.
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 efficient sentence with the object of the operation front-loaded. It is appropriately brief, though the brevity here is partly under-specification rather than purely good conciseness.
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 tool in a large family of near-identical getters with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It fails to clarify scope relative to get_channel_full or explain the required channel argument, leaving important gaps.
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% and the single 'channel' parameter has no description in either the schema or the description text. The description does not indicate what the channel argument is (index, range, valid values), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (read back) and resource (configuration of an analog channel). This is clearer than many siblings, but it doesn't distinguish itself from the very similar 'get_channel_full' sibling, nor from 'set_channel' / 'get_trigger_config', leaving the agent to infer the scope difference.
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 when-to-use guidance at all. Crucially, the description gives no way to choose between this tool and 'get_channel_full', which reads similarly. The agent is left to guess which retrieval variant to call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.