Retrieve and clear the signal generator's error queue, returning all recorded errors to troubleshoot SCPI commands and instrument issues.
Read and consume the instrument's error queue, returning every recorded error.
This is separate from status because reading removes the errors. No *CLS or preset is sent. Old errors are also returned by configuration tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description explains exactly why: reading is destructive to the queue because it consumes/removes errors. It further discloses that no *CLS or preset is sent and that configuration tools may surface old errors, all of which is behavioral context beyond the structured fields.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its consumption semantics. The *CLS/preset detail is niche but earns its place by clarifying the tool's side-effect profile.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the load well, covering the consumption side effect, the distinction from get_status, and the absence of *CLS/preset. Return format is unspecified, but for an error queue this is a minor gap.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no argument syntax to clarify, and the description appropriately spends its words on behavior instead.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read and consume the instrument's error queue') with an explicit scope ('returning every recorded error'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_status, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.
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?
It names the relevant alternative ('separate from status') and gives the condition that separates them ('reading removes the errors'), which tells the agent when to prefer this tool. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule, but the routing context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.