Creates a new Arduino sketch folder with a pre-filled .ino file containing setup() and loop() boilerplate, so you can start coding immediately.
Create a new Arduino sketch (folder + .ino file with setup()/loop() boilerplate).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Full path of the new sketch folder, e.g. '/path/to/Arduino/MyBlink' |
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=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description usefully adds what actually gets created (folder plus boilerplate .ino), but says nothing about behavior when the path already exists or where the path is created relative to.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and its side effects are packed efficiently into one line.
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 simple one-parameter creation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is error/conflict behavior when the target path is occupied.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a concrete example path, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the path format or constraints beyond what the schema already states, which fits the baseline 3 for full coverage.
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 and resource ('Create a new Arduino sketch') and enumerates the concrete artifacts produced (folder + .ino file with setup()/loop() boilerplate). This clearly distinguishes it from read/validate/archive siblings like sketch-validate and sketch-archive.
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 never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sketch-archive or compile, nor any prerequisites like whether an existing sketch folder would conflict. Usage is only inferable from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.