Configure the digital voltmeter by selecting a channel source and measurement mode, such as AC RMS, DC, or DC RMS in volts, and optionally enabling it.
Configure DVM. source: CH1..CH4; mode: ACRMs|DC|DCRMs (volts).
The AC and DCRM spellings are accepted as aliases of ACRMs/DCRMs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| enable | No | ||
| source | No |
| 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 discloses useful behavioral detail (unit 'volts', accepted alias spellings AC/DCRM), but nothing about whether settings persist, what 'enable' does, whether the change affects an active measurement, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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?
Short and front-loaded with the tool's purpose before the value enumeration. The line break and trailing 'The AC and DCRM spellings...' sentence are slightly loose but each sentence carries information.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the definition should cover the undocumented 'enable' parameter and the when-to-use relationship to read_dvm; neither appears. Adequate but with clear 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% with no enums, so the description must compensate. It does document source (CH1..CH4) and mode (ACRMs|DC|DCRMs, volts, plus accepted aliases), which is genuinely valuable, but the third parameter 'enable' is left completely unexplained in both schema and description.
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 and resource ('Configure DVM'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling read_dvm and other set_* tools. It also enumerates the configurable source and mode values, so the intent is unambiguous. It stops short of 5 only because 'DVM' is left as an unexplained acronym with no scope statement.
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 set_/read_ sibling pairing (read_dvm exists separately), but the description never says when to call this versus read_dvm, nor that it is the prerequisite for measurement. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.