Write raw key-value entries into a saved .ioc project file and reload it into the engine to configure GPIO parameters and custom constants the CLI cannot address.
Write raw keys into the saved .ioc and reload it into the engine. Used for values the CLI cannot address (GPIO parameters, custom constants).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Key | |
| value | No | Value | |
| reload | No | Reload into the engine | |
| entries | No | key -> value map | |
| 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 burden alone. It usefully discloses that the file is mutated and that an engine reload follows by default, but says nothing about whether a project must be open/saved first, whether invalid raw keys can corrupt the .ioc, or whether reload is expensive/skippable.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, with the operation and its side effect front-loaded and the scoping guidance second. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 5-parameter mutation tool with a nested object, no annotations and no output schema, it covers the what and the when but leaves the key/value vs entries ambiguity and the reload semantics unaddressed. An agent could call it, but might call it incorrectly.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — notably it never clarifies the relationship between the single key/value pair and the entries map, or when reload should be set to false.
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 verb and resource: writing raw keys into the saved .ioc, plus the reload side effect. It implicitly separates itself from the CLI sibling by framing this as the escape hatch for values the CLI cannot address, though it never names a sibling tool directly.
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?
Gives a clear usage condition — only for values the CLI cannot address — with concrete examples (GPIO parameters, custom constants). It doesn't state what to use instead when the key IS CLI-addressable, but the routing logic is inferable from the negative framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.