instrument_startStarts signal capture on the currently open instrument using the settings already configured in DSView. Initiates recording so logic analyzer data can be decoded and analyzed.
Start capture on the open instrument. DSView uses whatever the GUI already configured.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool relies on GUI configuration rather than parameters, but it does not disclose blocking behavior, failure modes, whether an existing capture is stopped or replaced, or other side effects. For a trigger-style action this is a significant gap.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds essential context about the GUI-driven configuration.
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?
The output schema exists and there are zero parameters, which reduces some completeness demands. Still, the description does not connect to prerequisite or companion tools such as instrument_open or instrument_stop, nor does it clarify behavior if no instrument is open or a capture is already running. It is adequate but not fully complete for integration.
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 input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that all settings are inherited from the GUI and no arguments need to be supplied, which adds useful context even though there are no parameters to document.
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 identifies the action as 'start capture' on an open instrument, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool instrument_capture, whose name suggests a similar or overlapping operation.
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 mentions that the instrument must be open and that configuration comes from the DSView GUI, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus instrument_capture or other instrument_* siblings. No exclusions, prerequisites beyond 'open instrument', or alternative routing are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.