PXE200 SA MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Sa Read

sa_read

Read raw on-screen data from a PXE200 spectrum analyzer, including labels, tables, plots, windows, device info, and widget tree, to inspect current measurements and UI state.

Instructions

Raw readouts of what is on screen: labels (result values, annotations), tables (peak/harmonic/SEM/ mapping/pulse tables), plots (graphs + trace point counts), windows, device info, widget tree.

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_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`what`	No	labels \| tables \| plots \| windows \| device \| tree	labels
`scope`	No	Limit to a widget objectName/class (labels, tree)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully details what each category contains (labels are result values/annotations; tables include peak/harmonic/SEM/mapping/pulse; plots include trace point counts), but never states read-only/non-mutating nature, permissions, or limits.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with a dense but purposeful list of categories; no filler and the core purpose leads.

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 so return values need no explanation, and both params are documented. Coverage of the read categories is good; the only gap is the absence of read-only/side-effect disclosure for a zero-annotation tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the enum by explaining what each 'what' category actually returns (e.g., tables = peak/harmonic/SEM/mapping/pulse). The 'scope' widget filter is only loosely implied.

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 ('Raw readouts of what is on screen') and enumerates the retrievable categories (labels, tables, plots, windows, device info, widget tree). This is clear, but it does not differentiate itself from read-oriented siblings like sa_get, sa_results, or sa_state.

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?

The enumeration implies when each 'what' value applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., sa_get, sa_results, sa_screenshot). Usage is inferred rather than directed.

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