Retrieve alias-match and device-patch details for a target on a given backend to ensure correct device configuration and apply needed patches during MCU debugging.
Return alias-match and device-patch info for a target on a given backend.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | ||
| backend | No | pyocd |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return' without clarifying whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, required permissions, or error behavior. The lack of such context is a significant gap for a tool interacting with a backend.
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, concise sentence with no filler or repetition. The action is front-loaded ('Return') and the structure is scannable. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though extremely brief.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'alias-match' and 'device-patch' mean, what the returned info looks like, or when this tool would be used in a debugging flow. The jargon and missing behavioral context leave the agent under-informed.
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 schema has zero description coverage (0%), and the description does not compensate. While 'target' and 'backend' are implicitly mentioned ('for a target on a given backend'), no details are provided about valid values, formats, or the meaning of 'backend' beyond the default. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter usage.
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 clearly states the action ('Return') and the specific resource ('alias-match and device-patch info for a target on a given backend'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'match_chip_name'. However, the domain-specific terms 'alias-match' and 'device-patch' are not further explained, leaving some ambiguity for unfamiliar users.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools, so an agent receives no help in selecting this over another tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.