Sets multiple IP parameters in one call and registers them in IPParameters for STM32CubeMX project configuration.
Set several IP parameters at once and register them all in IPParameters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IP instance | |
| params | Yes | name -> 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 full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It reveals only that values end up 'registered in IPParameters'; it says nothing about whether existing unlisted parameters are preserved, whether the project must be open or saved, what happens on partial failure of the batch, or whether the operation is reversible.
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 filler and no repetition of the schema. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a free-form nested payload, the definition is too thin: no atomicity/error semantics, no preconditions, and no indication of what the call reports back. The agent has enough to attempt the call but not enough to predict its effects.
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 three parameters are already documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. However, `params` is an open nested object with additionalProperties=true, so valid value types are unknowable from the schema, and the description adds no guidance on the name spelling or value encoding expected.
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 (set), resource (IP parameters), and a distinguishing scope modifier (several at once, registered in IPParameters), which implicitly separates it from the single-value sibling ip_param_set. It stops short of naming that sibling outright, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.
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?
There is no stated when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must a project be open first?), and no named alternative. The only hint is 'at once', which a careful reader can read as batch-vs-single, but the agent is left to infer that ip_param_set exists for the one-off case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.