Set an IP parameter and register it in .IPParameters (the same persistence rule CubeMX uses).
Set an IP parameter and register it in .IPParameters (the same persistence rule CubeMX uses).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IP instance | |
| param | Yes | Parameter name | |
| value | Yes | Value | |
| project_id | No | 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 burden, but it does disclose one important behavioral fact: the parameter is persisted into <IP>.IPParameters, matching CubeMX semantics. It says nothing about permission requirements, error behavior when the IP or parameter name is invalid, whether changes are reversible, or what is returned.
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 with the action and the side effect front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The '<IP>.IPParameters' placeholder notation is mildly opaque but not enough to cost more than one point.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the write and its persistence side effect but omits state requirements and return behavior. It is minimally viable rather than complete.
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 four parameters (ip, param, value, project_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or valid-value detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 ('Set') and resource ('IP parameter'), plus the extra effect of registering into <IP>.IPParameters. It does not, however, distinguish this from the closely named siblings ip_param_set and ip_params_set, leaving the agent to guess which one applies.
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 tool versus ip_param_set, ip_params_set, or the other standalone_* tools. The agent gets no exclusions, no preconditions (e.g., whether a project must be open), and no scenario guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.