Retrieve the oscilloscope's current save configuration to verify image format, color settings, filename prefix, storage path, and overwrite mode before saving.
Read back all :SAVE options (image invert/color/format/header, overwrite mode, filename prefix, storage path, storage status).
| 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 behavioral burden. 'Read back' correctly implies a safe read-only operation, and the listed fields indicate scope. It does not describe side effects, permissions, or return behavior beyond that, but for a zero-argument getter this is adequate.
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 sentence with the main action front-loaded and a compact parenthetical listing the covered options. 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?
The tool is a simple zero-parameter getter, an output schema exists, and the description enumerates the returned SAVE options. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could mention how it relates to the nearby save/status/getter tools.
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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable under the stated baseline. The description's field list describes the returned configuration rather than inputs, adding useful scope information without needing schema compensation.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Read back') and resource (':SAVE options'), then enumerates the settings returned. It is clearly a getter, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_save_status or configure_save.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb and context: use this to read the complete SAVE configuration. However, the description does not state when to prefer it over get_save_status, configure_save, or other setup/status tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.