Persist active SRAM settings to FLASH so configuration survives a reboot, with built-in confirmation to prevent accidental writes.
Save running settings (SRAM) to FLASH (write — requires confirmation)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_code | No | ||
| confirm_token | No | ||
| confirmation_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that this is a write operation and that confirmation is required, which is more than minimal. However, it omits details about the confirmation flow, whether the write is irreversible, or what side effects may occur beyond persisting settings.
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 filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and a key caveat. It is appropriately concise given the simple primary operation, though the missing parameter explanation is a separate completeness issue.
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 tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the confirmation process, the meaning of any parameter, or how to obtain confirmation credentials. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without additional information.
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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters (user_code, confirm_token, confirmation_id). The one hint that confirmation is required is too vague to map to these fields. The agent cannot determine what values to supply or how to obtain them.
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 ('Save') and resource ('running settings (SRAM) to FLASH'), clearly distinguishing it from the many read-only show/status siblings. It also adds the 'write' and confirmation hint, making the primary action unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that this should be used after making settings changes, nor does it reference any other tool as an alternative. The usage context is only implied by the name and description, not made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.