PXE200 SA MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Sa Mode

sa_mode

Switch SAStudio4 measurement modes—SA, RTA, IQS, DET, HARM, PN, or MAP—to run the right spectrum analysis for your PXE200 measurement task.

Instructions

Switch the SAStudio4 measurement mode.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "mode": "<mode>"
    },
    "name": "sa_mode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes	SA (swept spectrum) \| RTA (real-time) \| IQS (IQ streaming) \| DET (power vs time) \| HARM (harmonics) \| PN (phase noise) \| MAP

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool switches modes but does not disclose side effects such as whether an active measurement is interrupted, whether settings reset, or what happens with invalid modes.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded. It could be slightly more structured, but it is appropriately sized for a simple mode-switching tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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 parameter schema fully documents the mode options. However, the lack of annotations and missing usage or side-effect context leave the definition only minimally complete for a state-changing tool.

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%, and the single mode parameter is fully documented with allowed values in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: switching the SAStudio4 measurement mode. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like sa_configure or sa_measure.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies usage, but there are no conditions, prerequisites, or sibling references to help the agent choose correctly.

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