Retrieves allowed values for a specified RCC parameter in an STM32CubeMX project, so you can validate clock configuration choices before applying them.
Query the allowed values of one RCC parameter (get mode_param_possvalue).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| param | Yes | RCC parameter | |
| project_id | Yes | Project id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does not state that this is a non-mutating lookup (only implied by "Query"), whether a project must be open, or what happens for an invalid param. The only behavioral signal is the echoed CLI command, which is helpful but insufficient for a zero-annotation tool.
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 no padding; the tool's purpose is stated immediately and the underlying command is appended as a compact implementation hint. Every element earns its place.
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 two-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema present the description should say what comes back (a list of allowed value strings, an enum, an error for unknown params). That return-shape gap is the one thing an agent still has to guess.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description links 'param' to RCC parameter values, but adds no syntax, case-sensitivity, or format guidance beyond what the schema already says.
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?
Specific verb-plus-resource ("Query the allowed values of one RCC parameter") with the underlying command named, so an agent knows it is a read of valid values rather than a setter like clock_set or ip_param_set. It is distinguishable from siblings, though "RCC parameter" is domain jargon that assumes prior knowledge.
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?
Usage is only implied: the natural reading is 'look up legal values before calling clock_set / ip_param_set', but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or names any alternative. An agent must infer the workflow position from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.