Retrieve the value pattern CubeMX expects for an IP mode parameter so you can supply correctly formatted mode settings in mxmcp projects.
Get the value pattern CubeMX expects for a mode parameter (get mode_param_pattern <ip> <mode> <parameter>).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IP name | |
| mode | Yes | Active mode name | |
| parameter | Yes | Parameter 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read but never states read-only/side-effect freedom, does not say what the pattern looks like (regex vs literal), and does not disclose failure behavior for invalid ip/mode/parameter combinations.
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 the core purpose first and the CLI hint trailing; no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical is more cryptic than clarifying for an agent.
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?
Four required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must explain the return value — and it does not. An agent learns nothing about the shape of the returned pattern or how to consume it in a subsequent mode_set call.
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 all four parameters are already documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The CLI snippet loosely maps ip/mode/parameter to their roles but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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?
Specific verb 'Get' plus a concrete resource ('value pattern CubeMX expects for a mode parameter'). It is distinguishable from the mutation siblings (mode_set, mode_reset) and query siblings (mode_list, mode_catalog), though it never names an alternative 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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus mode_check, sub_modes, or ip_param_get, and no prerequisites. The embedded CLI snippet suggests the calling convention but nothing about the decision context in which an agent should select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.