Lists all supported Arduino boards and their FQBNs, with optional name filtering to quickly find boards like uno, esp32, or nano.
List all supported boards and their FQBNs. Optionally filter by name (e.g. 'uno', 'esp32', 'nano').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Substring to filter board names, e.g. 'uno' or 'mkr' |
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 burden. It discloses that results include FQBNs, which is useful return-content context, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether the list is cached/installed-vs-supported only. For a simple read-only list this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the optional filter second. Nothing redundant or padded.
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?
For a one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and that FQBNs are included, which is enough to invoke correctly. The only gap is failure to clarify its role versus the sibling board-list.
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% and the single parameter already documents the substring filter in the schema. The description's filter examples ('uno', 'esp32', 'nano') mostly duplicate the schema examples, adding little beyond it. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 (List) and resource (boards), and adds that FQBNs are returned. The 'all supported' qualifier hints at breadth but never explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling board-list, so an agent must still guess which listing tool is intended.
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?
The description notes an optional name filter and gives examples, which implies the common usage. However, it gives no when-to-use guidance relative to board-list or board-details, leaving sibling selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.