read_workflow_instructionRetrieve a bundled workflow note by name to guide LTspice simulation steps. Use it to fetch setup or procedure instructions before editing schematics, running simulations, or analyzing logs.
Read one bundled workflow note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: 'bundled' hints the notes ship with the server rather than being user-authored, but there is no statement about lookup failure behavior or what a note contains.
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 short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the under-specification noted elsewhere.
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 output schema, no parameter description, and a bare description, an agent cannot tell how to obtain a valid name or what the returned note looks like. For a tool whose whole job is retrieval, this leaves key operational detail missing.
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% and the single required 'name' parameter has no type-level description. The description says nothing about whether 'name' is an ID, a title, or a path, nor where valid values come from, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.
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+resource ('Read one bundled workflow note') and the singular 'one' hints at the read-one vs list-many split with list_workflow_instructions. However, it never names that sibling and the resource is called a 'note' while the tool is named 'instruction', leaving mild ambiguity about what is being read.
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 versus list_workflow_instructions, and no indication that a valid 'name' must first be discovered via the list tool. The agent is left to infer the whole discovery-then-read workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.