PPK2 MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

capture

Record a fixed-length PPK2 current measurement, save samples to an npz file, and return statistics, an envelope overview, and the file path.

Instructions

定长采集(阻塞,≤60s):采样→落盘 npz→返回统计+包络+路径。

这是功耗分析的主入口。返回 stats(mean/min/max/charge/energy)、 envelope(~1000 点 min/max/mean 概览)、meta(含丢样数)与文件路径。 capture_id 仅限字母数字._-。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "capture"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`capture_id`	No
`duration_s`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers meaningful behavior: it is blocking, capped at ≤60s, persists an npz to disk, reports dropped-sample counts in meta, and constrains capture_id to alphanumerics/._-. It omits error/failure behavior and permission requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core verb and flow in one line, then return payload, then the id constraint. Every sentence carries information; only minor tightening is possible.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the return payload (stats, envelope, meta, path) and the side effect (npz on disk), which is what an agent needs. The main remaining gap is not routing the agent between this blocking capture and the start/stop/status trio.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% with two parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents the capture_id charset constraint but says nothing about duration_s (default, units beyond the implied seconds, allowable range), leaving half the parameter surface unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific operation (定长采集) and spells out the full pipeline: 采样→落盘 npz→返回统计+包络+路径. It distinguishes itself implicitly as a blocking fixed-duration capture rather than a streaming flow, but it never names the sibling tools (start_capture/stop_capture/get_capture_status) it is contrasted against.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'这是功耗分析的主入口' and '定长采集(阻塞,≤60s)' imply the context in which it is used (a bounded, blocking single-shot capture), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance nor any statement of when to prefer the start/stop/get_status capture siblings instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.