PXE200 SA MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Sa Dialog

sa_dialog

List, read, answer, or close open dialogs and message boxes on a PXE200 spectrum analyzer so automated SCPI workflows can continue without manual clicks.

Instructions

See open dialogs / message boxes (text and buttons) and answer or close them.

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": "sa_dialog"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	No	list \| answer \| close	list
`button`	No	For answer: button caption or name (OK, Cancel, Confirm, ...)
`window`	No	Dialog class/title; blank = newest

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that dialogs expose text and buttons and that you can answer or close them. However, it omits key behavioral traits for a UI mutation tool: whether calls block waiting for a dialog, what happens if the named window/button is not found, and whether answering is irreversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the scope first and the actions second. The slash constructions ('dialogs / message boxes') are slightly informal but cost little.

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?

An output schema exists and schema coverage is full, so return values and parameter formats are covered elsewhere. The description is adequate for a three-parameter UI tool; only the missing dialog-vs-window scoping and blocking behavior keep it from being complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents action, button, and window in detail; the description adds only the loose hint that buttons exist. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific resource (open dialogs / message boxes) and the actions available (see, answer, close), with parenthetical detail that dialogs carry text and buttons. It reads clearly on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from UI siblings like sa_controls, sa_menu, or sa_press.

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?

Usage is implied by the three actions (list dialogs, answer them, close them) but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note that this applies to modal/blocking dialogs rather than app windows, and no routing to or away from sibling tools.

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