Configures an oscilloscope's edge trigger mode by setting source, slope, and voltage level.
Edge trigger (most common). Switches TRIGger:MODE to EDGE.
source: CH1..CH4 / D0..D15; slope: POSitive|NEGative|RFALl; level: volts (analog: ±4.5×scale−offset; digital: ±15 V)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| extra | No | ||
| level | No | ||
| slope | 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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core mutation ('Switches TRIGger:MODE to EDGE') and parameter domains/units, but it does not say whether other trigger settings are preserved, what side effects occur, or whether specific permissions are needed.
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?
The description is extremely compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first sentence and then lists parameter semantics in a terse, readable block. Every phrase carries needed information without filler.
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 description covers the essential parameter semantics. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance relative to sibling trigger tools, the definition is only minimally complete for selecting and safely invoking the tool.
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%, so the description must supply parameter meaning. It documents source ranges, slope values, and level units/formulas for three of four parameters, adding substantial value beyond the bare schema. The 'extra' parameter remains undocumented, keeping this from a perfect score.
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 states a specific verb and resource: selects edge trigger mode and configures source, slope, and level. It distinguishes itself from other trigger-type setters by naming 'edge trigger' and noting it is the most common, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like set_trigger_pulse_width or set_trigger_slope.
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?
The phrase '(most common)' weakly implies edge triggering is the usual choice, but the description never states when to use this tool versus the many other trigger configuration tools. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.