Create an MCU project from a part number using only the bundled database, resolving marketing part numbers to database reference names.
Create a project for an MCU using only the bundled database (marketing part numbers are resolved to the db reference name).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mcu | Yes | MCU part number (STM32F103C8T6) or db name | |
| name | No | Project id | |
| toolchain | No | Target toolchain | Makefile |
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 behavioral burden. It explains that marketing part numbers are resolved to the database reference name, but it does not disclose mutation side effects, overwrite behavior, permissions, or error handling for a create operation.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The parenthetical adds useful clarification without disrupting conciseness.
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?
The core purpose and database-resolution behavior are clear, and the schema fully covers parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about what happens on creation, such as overwrite behavior or return expectations.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds useful meaning for the mcu parameter by explaining marketing part number resolution, but it does not add information about name or toolchain 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: create a project for an MCU. It also adds a meaningful scope constraint, using only the bundled database, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling project_create tool.
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 'using only the bundled database' implies a usage condition, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as project_create.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.