Imports an existing .ioc configuration into a live STM32CubeMX project and re-saves it, letting you apply another project's settings without rebuilding the project.
Import another .ioc into the live project (import config), then re-save.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ioc | Yes | .ioc to import | |
| 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 does disclose the essential behavioral trait: it mutates the live project and then re-saves it. However, it omits merge-vs-overwrite semantics for conflicting settings, whether an open project is required, and whether the change is reversible — all material for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.
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: action, target, and side effect, with zero filler. The parenthetical command hint is compact and useful.
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 2-required-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the action and its save side effect but leaves out preconditions and conflict/merge behavior, which an agent needs before invoking a state-changing import.
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 both parameters (ioc, project_id) are already documented. The description reinforces that the .ioc goes into a live project but adds no format, path, or compatibility details beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names a specific verb+resource: importing another .ioc into the *live* (currently open) project, plus the follow-on re-save, and even cites the underlying `import config` command. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like ioc_import/ioc_set, though it doesn't explicitly say how it differs from them.
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?
Implies the usage context (a project is already open and live, and you want another .ioc's configuration folded in) but never states when to prefer this over ioc_import, ioc_set, or project_set_option, nor any preconditions/exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.