PXE200 SA MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Sa State

sa_state

Save, list, or recall complete SAStudio4 setups to restore measurement configurations. Confirmation required to overwrite or replace the current setup.

Instructions

Save / list / recall complete SAStudio4 setups (File > Save State / Recall State).

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_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	State name (save) or file name from list (recall)
`action`	No	save \| list \| recall	list
`confirm`	No	recall: required (replaces the whole setup); save: overwrite

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the operation names. The critical facts that recall replaces the whole setup and that save can overwrite live in the schema's confirm parameter, not the description, and no permissions or side effects are disclosed here.

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 compact sentence with the verb list front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficiently sized, though it is arguably terse enough that it under-serves a state-mutating 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 schema covers all parameters. However, for a tool that can overwrite and wholesale-replace setups with no annotations, the description leaves behavioral gaps an agent would want filled.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, action, and confirm in detail. The description adds no syntax, format, or value guidance beyond what the schema supplies, making the baseline 3 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 three concrete verbs (save/list/recall) against a specific resource (complete SAStudio4 setups) and anchors it to the GUI menu path, so the agent knows exactly what the tool manages. It does not, however, differentiate itself from plausible siblings like sa_file, sa_files, sa_get, or sa_set.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. The menu-path reference implies context but does not help the agent choose between sa_state and the file/get/set siblings.

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