Fetch the complete traceback of the last MicroPython app failure. Provides full error details beyond the 48-character event log summary.
Machine-specific (cyd). Observation, L2. Read the full traceback of the most recent MicroPython app failure. The event log keeps only a 48-character summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly says 'Read', indicating a non-destructive operation, and specifies it retrieves the most recent failure traceback. It does not mention potential side effects or edge cases (e.g., no failures), but for a simple read tool this is adequate transparency.
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 two short sentences with no fluff. It leads with the core action and resource, then adds a useful constraint (48-character summary limitation). Every word earns its place, and the structure is 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?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple read operation, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to call the tool correctly. It specifies the input (none), the action, and the rationale for using it. There are no missing critical details.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameters. It correctly omits parameter details, which is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'full traceback of the most recent MicroPython app failure', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cyd_logs by specifying it retrieves a full traceback rather than a generic log, and mentions the machine-specific context (cyd).
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?
The description implies when to use this tool by noting that the event log only keeps a 48-character summary, suggesting this tool is for getting the full details when needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5 but provides clear contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.