Inspect a mode-tree branch to retrieve sub-mode enable state and available sub-modes for a project, IP, and mode path, matching the peripheral diagram data.
Inspect a mode-tree branch: sub-mode enable state and available sub-modes (get sub-mode-state / get sub-modes), the same data the peripheral diagram uses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes | IP name | |
| path | Yes | Comma separated mode path, e.g. "mode,submode1" | |
| 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?
The description adds critical context by stating the returned data is 'the same data the peripheral diagram uses,' defining the output's context and format beyond the schema. Since no annotations exist, this context is highly valuable.
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 definition is highly efficient, using a single paragraph to cover what the tool does, how it functions, and what data it provides, with zero wasted words.
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?
Given the simple schema, the description is complete. It explains the scope (branch inspection), the output content (state/availability), and references the specific domain context (peripheral diagram data).
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?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description clarifies the format of the 'path' parameter, providing a concrete example ('mode,submode1') that helps the agent correctly structure the input string.
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 precisely defines the action ('Inspect') and the target resource ('mode-tree branch'), stating it retrieves the 'enable state and available sub-modes'. It further distinguishes itself by referencing specific command equivalents and the source of its data.
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?
While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives, the description focuses on 'Inspect' and 'available' data, which clearly sets its function as a read-only inspection tool rather than a configuration or modification tool like `mode_set`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.