Read raw keys from a saved STM32CubeMX .ioc file—retrieve a single key or list all keys filtered by prefix for project inspection and validation.
Read raw keys from the saved .ioc: one key, or all keys with an optional prefix (e.g. 'RCC.' or 'PA9.').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Exact key | |
| prefix | No | Key prefix filter | |
| 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 behavioral burden. 'Read' signals a non-mutating operation and the scope is limited to the saved .ioc, but it does not mention prerequisites such as an open project, permission/auth needs, missing-key behavior, or what the raw key return values look like.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and the two invocation modes without filler. Every clause adds useful information.
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 read tool with high schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. Without annotations or an output schema, it could say more about prerequisites, error conditions, and the shape of returned raw keys.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the terse schema labels by clarifying the single-key vs. all-keys-with-prefix pattern and giving concrete prefix examples such as 'RCC.' and 'PA9.'.
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: 'Read raw keys from the saved .ioc.' It clearly distinguishes the two access modes (single key vs. all keys via prefix) but does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from sibling tools such as ioc_set, ioc_delete, or ioc_export.
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?
It explains how to use the key and prefix parameters ('one key, or all keys with an optional prefix'), which implies the tool's intended query context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling read/write/export tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.