Run a health check on the Arduino setup: verify CLI, cores, libraries, connected boards, and pending updates. Use it first when behavior seems odd.
Health check for the whole Arduino setup: CLI, cores, libraries, connected boards, pending updates. Run first when anything behaves oddly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating what gets inspected (CLI, cores, libraries, boards, updates), which is more than the annotations convey, though it says nothing about output or how failures are reported.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope of the check followed by the usage trigger. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.
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 no-parameter, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and when to run it, which is sufficient for correct invocation. A brief note on the shape of the result or follow-up tools would make it fully complete.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies since the schema is empty and complete.
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 (health check) and resource (whole Arduino setup), then enumerates the diagnostic surface: CLI, cores, libraries, boards, pending updates. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list/install/compile tools, which each operate on one narrow resource.
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?
"Run first when anything behaves oddly" gives a clear trigger condition for invoking the tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the diagnostic-first framing is unambiguous enough that an agent knows when to reach for it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.