list_waveformsLists the names of waveforms saved on the local machine, enabling AI clients to identify available waveform options before selecting or controlling outputs.
列出本机保存的波形名称。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 burden. It usefully discloses that only names are returned rather than full waveform records, which is the key behavioral fact for this tool. It says nothing about empty-list behavior, whether the list is per-device or global, or error conditions, but the output schema covers the return shape.
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 zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient but extremely thin — the size is arguably below what a tool with nine waveform siblings deserves.
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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the essentials are present: it enumerates saved waveform names. What is missing is the relational context an agent needs in a crowded waveform toolset — how this list connects to get_waveform/save_waveform and whether the scope is one device or all local storage.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or pagination arguments are available.
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 (列出/list) and a specific resource (本机保存的波形名称 — names of locally saved waveforms), and the 'names only' framing hints at the difference from get_waveform. It never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent has to infer which one to call when it wants full waveform data.
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 call this versus get_waveform, list_devices, or the other listing tools, and no prerequisite or follow-up context. The agent must infer that the result is a name list meant to feed get_waveform or start_waveform.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.