list_connected_boardsLists Arduino boards and serial ports detected by arduino-cli for identification.
List connected boards and serial ports detected by arduino-cli.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| command | No | ||
| data | No | ||
| raw | No | ||
| rawTail | No | ||
| stage | No | ||
| errorCode | No | ||
| retryable | No | ||
| reasonCodes | No | ||
| nextActions | No | ||
| note | No | ||
| error | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint is absent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the context that results are detected by arduino-cli, implying current hardware state, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as caching, ordering, or refresh behavior.
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 that directly states the action and scope. Every word is useful, with no fluff or repetition beyond the title.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It names what is listed, the source of detection, and adds enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no need for detailed parameter descriptions. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing needs to be explained beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 and resource: 'List connected boards and serial ports detected by arduino-cli.' It clearly names what is returned and scopes it to arduino-cli. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like list_serial_ports or list_supported_boards, so an agent could still confuse it with those tools.
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 such as list_serial_ports, list_supported_boards, or detect_hardware. The description only explains what it does, not when to prefer it or when to avoid it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.