Jump to the Nth search event on a Rigol MHO98 oscilloscope by index. Use it to inspect individual events found by a search; index 0 selects no event.
Jump to the Nth search event (:SEARch:EVENt).
event_index is 1-based; 0 selects 'no event' (the query returns 0 while the event table is empty).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_index | 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 supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses non-obvious behavior: indexing is 1-based, 0 means 'no event', and the query reports 0 while the event table is empty. However it says nothing about side effects on the view, errors when the index exceeds the event count, or required state, so a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the parameter convention immediately after; nothing extraneous. The parenthetical about the empty-table return value is dense but earns its place as edge-case behavior.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameter convention is covered. What is missing is the operational context an agent needs — whether a search must be pre-configured and how this relates to the search/navigate sibling tools — leaving the definition adequate 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% and the single parameter is entirely undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate — and it largely does, defining the 1-based indexing convention and the special meaning of 0. The only gap is that it does not describe the valid upper bound (what happens if event_index exceeds the number of events).
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 (jump) and resource (the Nth search event), and even names the underlying SCPI mnemonic (:SEARch:EVENt), which pins down exactly which subsystem this belongs to. It is distinguishable from navigation-config siblings like configure_navigate and get_navigate_config, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_search_event_time.
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?
There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as get_search_event_time, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that a search must first be configured). Usage is only implied by the parameter semantics, which is weak guidance for an agent choosing among many search/navigate siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.