Re-target an existing STM32CubeMX project to a different MCU, preserving compatible pins and peripherals where possible while updating the target part.
Re-target an existing project to another MCU (CubeMX keeps compatible pins/peripherals where possible, same as the GUI load <mcu>).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mcu | Yes | MCU part number | |
| 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. It usefully discloses that CubeMX keeps compatible pins/peripherals where possible, but it does not explain what happens to incompatible pins/peripherals, whether changes are reversible, or whether the operation requires specific permissions or project state.
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?
The description is a single sentence with the core action front-loaded. The parenthetical GUI equivalence and compatibility note add useful context without wasting space.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and one key behavioral trait. It is still missing operational details an agent would need, such as preconditions, failure behavior, and the fate of incompatible project settings.
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 are already documented in the input schema. The description adds little parameter-specific semantics beyond confirming that the operation targets an existing project and an MCU part.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Re-target an existing project to another MCU.' It clearly scopes the operation to changing the MCU target, which distinguishes it from the sibling project_load_board tool and from project creation/open tools.
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 phrase 'existing project' and 'another MCU' implies usage, and the GUI equivalence clarifies intent. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over project_load_board, nor does it state prerequisites such as whether the project must already be open.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.