Read GPIO parameters from a saved .ioc file for a specific pin or all pins, including labels, modes, and lock states to inspect project pin configuration.
GPIO parameters for one pin or all pins, read from the saved .ioc (GPIOParameters list, label, mode, lock state).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pin | No | Optional pin name | |
| 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 disclose two valuable behaviors: the data comes from the persisted .ioc (so unsaved in-session edits would not appear) and it enumerates the returned fields (GPIOParameters list, label, mode, lock state). It is silent on what happens if project_id is invalid or pin not found, and does not state read-only nature explicitly.
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 dense sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and the return fields in a parenthetical. No filler, though the parenthetical field list is slightly cryptic without the output schema.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must and largely does cover both: it enumerates what the call returns and where the data is read from. Missing only error/empty-state behavior and any prerequisite about the project being saved to disk.
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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: the 'pin' parameter is optional and omitting it means all pins are returned, which the schema's bare 'Optional pin name' does not make clear. This is the key behavioral distinction the agent needs.
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?
States a specific resource (GPIO parameters) and scope (one pin or all pins), plus the source of truth ('read from the saved .ioc'). It is clearly a read of pin configuration, distinguishable from mutation siblings like gpio_set or pin_lock, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
'Read from the saved .ioc' implies usage context (project must be saved first) and 'one pin or all pins' implies scope selection. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no guidance on how it differs from pin_functions or pinout_get, which an agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.