connect_deviceConnect to a BLE device from the scan list by address and match supported protocols through its name and GATT services.
按扫描列表中的 BLE 地址连接设备，并通过名称与 GATT 服务匹配已支持协议。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| address | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the protocol-matching mechanism (name + GATT service), which is useful, but omits critical behavior for a connection tool: what happens if already connected, what happens when the protocol is unsupported, timeouts, or failure modes.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the connection action comes before the secondary protocol-matching clause. Slightly dense but efficient.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage on two parameters, the description leaves gaps around required inputs, prerequisites, and failure behavior for a connection-establishing tool.
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 gives address a concrete meaning (BLE address from the scan list) and hints that name drives protocol matching, but with both params nullable/default-null it never clarifies whether they are alternatives or whether at least one is required.
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 (connect) and resource (BLE device), plus the extra behavior of matching a supported protocol via name and GATT service. It is clearly distinct from disconnect_device, though it never names a 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?
"按扫描列表中的 BLE 地址" implies the device must already be discovered (via list_devices) before connecting, but this is only inferred. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no exclusions, and no stated prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.