Collect Bluetooth LE characteristic notifications for a specified duration, returning each notification's elapsed time and hex value for protocol analysis.
collect notifications from a characteristic for seconds.
returns one entry per notification: seconds since the start and the value as hex.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| seconds | Yes | ||
| char_uuid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the call is duration-bound and that it emits one entry per notification, but omits prerequisites (device must be connected/handles resolved), whether the subscription is torn down at the end, and any timeout or empty-result behavior.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and duration, then the return shape. 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?
The return shape is described and an output schema also exists, but for a stateful BLE operation with zero annotation coverage the definition leaves out connection prerequisites and teardown behavior that an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains `seconds` semantically as the collection window but says nothing about `address` or `char_uuid`. Two of three parameters remain defined only by their titles.
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: collect notifications from a characteristic for a bounded duration. This clearly contrasts with one-shot reads like read_char, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the contrast between 'collect ... for seconds' and the existence of read_char, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given. Nothing says a prior connect or characteristic discovery is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.