Retrieves required core, board options, and default programmer for an Arduino FQBN, helping configure boards accurately.
Show details for an FQBN: required core, board options, default programmer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fqbn | Yes | Fully Qualified Board Name, e.g. 'arduino:avr:uno' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the read-only nature and the fields returned, but doesn't state whether the FQBN must already be installed or resolved, or what happens on an unknown FQBN. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.
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?
A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Nothing to trim.
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?
Adequate for a single-param lookup tool, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description could have carried more behavioral context (failure modes, resolution behavior). It covers the minimum viable surface.
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 coverage is 100% – the single 'fqbn' parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example. The description repeats 'for an FQBN' without adding format or resolution semantics beyond the schema. 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 ('Show details') and resource (a board identified by FQBN), and lists the exact fields returned (required core, board options, default programmer). It is distinguishable from siblings like board-listall or board-list, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.
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 use this versus board-list or board-listall, and no prerequisites stated. Usage is only implied by the FQBN requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.