Read flash memory contents from an STM32 MCU and save them to a local binary file for backup or analysis.
Reads flash memory contents from the target MCU and dumps them to a local file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | No | SWD | |
| address | No | 0x08000000 | |
| size_bytes | No | ||
| output_file | No | flash_dump.bin |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that flash contents are read and written to a local file, but it does not explain whether an existing output file is overwritten, what file format is produced, what target state is required, or whether this operation is safe/non-destructive to the MCU.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core behavior, making it concise and easy to parse.
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?
With four optional parameters, sensible defaults, and an output schema, the one-line description plus the input schema is minimally viable. However, it leaves behavioral details like file overwriting, address alignment, size limits, and MCU connection prerequisites implicit, so it is adequate but not 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, but it does not. It never explains port, address, size_bytes, or output_file semantics beyond the names and defaults already present in the schema. An agent calling this with custom parameters receives no additional guidance.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Reads'), resource ('flash memory contents from the target MCU'), and destination ('dumps them to a local file'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like stm32_read_memory, which likely returns data rather than writing a file.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stm32_read_memory, stm32_flash_firmware, or stm32_erase_flash. The description implies a backup/dump use case but does not state exclusions or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.