Locks or unlocks a project pin to control whether STM32CubeMX code generation keeps or changes its mapping; set locked to true to preserve the pin assignment.
Lock or unlock a pin so generation keeps (or may change) its mapping (lock pin <pin> <locked>).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pin | Yes | Pin name | |
| locked | No | true to lock | |
| 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 full disclosure burden. It usefully explains the behavioral consequence of locking (generation respects the mapping), but omits whether the pin must already be assigned, whether the state persists across saves, and what happens on an unknown pin.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and its effect, plus the CLI form for cross-reference. Minimal waste, though the embedded CLI syntax is of marginal value to an agent choosing the tool.
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 toggle with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, effect, and both arguments adequately. Remaining gaps (prerequisites, error cases) are minor for a reversible toggle.
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 three parameters are already documented structurally; the description only repeats 'pin' and 'locked' semantics without adding format rules or default behavior beyond what the schema states.
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 pair (lock/unlock) on a specific resource (pin) and names the downstream effect on generation mapping. It doesn't explicitly contrast with nearby siblings such as pin_reserve or pin_set, so an agent must infer the distinction from the effect clause.
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?
The 'so generation keeps (or may change) its mapping' clause implicitly conveys when to lock vs unlock, but there are no explicit when-not conditions, prerequisites (e.g., project must be open, pin must exist), or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.