Search a bundled MCU database or dump a device's pins and IPs without installing CubeMX. Use it to find STM32 family, package, or part details and inspect exact pin/IP data.
Search the bundled MCU database, or dump one device's pins and IPs (works with no CubeMX installation).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exact | No | Exact db RefName to inspect | |
| limit | No | Max rows | |
| query | No | Search string (family, package, part number) |
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 discloses that no CubeMX installation is required and implies a read-only lookup ('search', 'dump'), but it says nothing about result volume, whether the dump mode is heavy/expensive, or what happens when both parameters are supplied.
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 sentence that front-loads the primary search behavior and appends the secondary dump mode and its key precondition. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does well to say the dump yields 'pins and IPs' and that it works standalone. It remains incomplete on mode selection between `exact` and `query` and on how this tool relates to the many sibling MCU lookup tools, which is the main decision an agent faces here.
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 each parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description implies a two-mode design (search vs. single-device dump) but never maps those modes onto the `query` and `exact` parameters or states their precedence, so it adds less than it could.
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 names a specific verb (search) and resource (bundled MCU database) plus a second mode (dump one device's pins and IPs), so the two behaviors are visible at a glance. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like mcu_search, mcu_info, or family_mcus, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone which entry point to pick.
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 parenthetical 'works with no CubeMX installation' hints at the usage context (offline/standalone scenarios), which is genuinely useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus mcu_search/mcu_info or the other standalone_* tools, and no statement about whether both modes can be invoked in one call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.