sa_connectConnect to the SCPI bridge inside SAStudio4 on a PXE200 spectrum analyzer using an optional bridge IP; leave blank to try the PXE_HOST list.
Connect to the SCPI bridge inside SAStudio4 on the PXE200.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | Bridge IP; blank = try PXE_HOST list |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 and delivers almost none of it: nothing about failure behavior if the bridge is unreachable, whether the connection persists, idempotency, timeouts, or whether it is a prerequisite for other sa_* tools. 'Connect' implies a stateful setup but that is entirely inferred.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the target system is named first. Nothing can be trimmed without losing 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a connection tool with no annotations and a large ecosystem of dependent siblings, the omission of prerequisites and connection lifecycle semantics leaves a meaningful gap.
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 100% and the single host parameter is already documented as 'Bridge IP; blank = try PXE_HOST list'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (Connect) and a specific resource (the SCPI bridge in SAStudio4 on the PXE200), which is enough to distinguish it from data-oriented siblings like sa_scpi or sa_results. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling it must precede, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to call it, whether it must be called before sa_scpi/sa_status, or what state it establishes. The blank-host fallback is only implied via the schema, not explained in usage terms. An agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.