Modify GIC interrupt routing by enabling or disabling an IRQ, changing its triggering mode, or updating priority and security settings in an STM32CubeMX project.
Change GIC interrupt routing (enable/disable, enable state, triggering mode, priority, security).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | Operation | |
| save | No | Save afterwards | |
| value | No | Value to set when the command takes one | |
| target | Yes | IRQ name or index | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, persistence behavior, or the significance of the save parameter, leaving important behavioral traits unspecified.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The brevity is effective structurally, though it leaves too much unsaid for a mutation tool.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the operational scope of the three enum operations, the role of save, or expected effects, so key context is missing.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds some operational context, but it mentions "priority" and "security" even though the kind enum only supports enable, disable, and set_triggering_mode, which may mislead the agent about supported operations.
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: "Change GIC interrupt routing." It lists the kinds of changes (enable/disable, triggering mode, priority, security), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with gic_query, but the mutation framing is evident.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., project open state), and no alternatives such as gic_query or nvic_write. An agent can infer it is for changes rather than reads, but no explicit routing guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.