List RTOS objects (tasks, queues, timers) with fields decoded per the shipped schema to inspect project RTOS configuration.
List the RTOS objects stored in the project with their fields decoded according to the shipped schema (field order from rtos_apis.xml).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api | No | RTOS API label, e.g. 'CMSIS RTOS2' | |
| project_id | No | Project id | |
| object_type | No | Data id, e.g. tasks / queues / timers (default: all) |
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 does add real behavioral context by stating that fields are decoded according to the shipped schema with field order from rtos_apis.xml. However, it says nothing about prerequisites, permissions, whether a project must be open, or how filtering behaves, leaving a meaningful gap for an un-annotated tool.
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 action first and the decoding detail trailing as a qualifier; no filler or redundancy.
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 read-only list tool with 3 optional params and no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level (decoded fields) but omits filtering combination behavior, prerequisites, and any sense of return shape. Adequate but with clear gaps for an un-annotated tool.
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 (api, project_id, object_type) are already documented, including the 'default: all' behavior for object_type. The description adds nothing per-parameter, so the baseline of 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?
The description gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('RTOS objects stored in the project') and explains that fields are decoded per the shipped schema. It is clear on its own but never names or contrasts with close siblings like rtos_schema, rtos_config, rtos_status, or rtos_object_write.
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 rtos_config (configuration), rtos_schema (schema lookup), or rtos_object_write (mutation). Usage is only inferable from the word 'List', and no prerequisites (e.g., a loaded/open project) are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.