Convert a radio frequency in MHz to CI-V BCD data bytes for set-frequency commands, or decode BCD hex reply bytes back to MHz.
Convert between a frequency in MHz and CI-V BCD data bytes.
Give mhz to get the 5 data bytes for a set-frequency command (05), or
bcd_hex (5 bytes from a reply) to get the frequency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mhz | No | ||
| bcd_hex | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains the conversion direction, the exact byte count (5), and the command context (set-frequency command 05). It doesn't cover edge cases like both parameters being provided, but for a pure conversion tool this is sufficient.
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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It avoids boilerplate and directly explains the two usage modes in just a few lines.
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?
This is a simple two-parameter conversion tool with an output schema present. The description covers both parameters, the exact conversion behavior, and the byte counts, so an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. Nothing critical is 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that mhz is the frequency input and bcd_hex is the 5-byte reply data, adding meaning beyond the bare property names and types. It stops short of specifying the exact hex string format for bcd_hex, but the core semantics are clear.
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 uses a specific verb ('Convert') and clearly identifies the resource: frequency in MHz and CI-V BCD data bytes. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like civ_build and civ_parse by framing it as the frequency-to-BCD conversion utility.
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 gives clear instructions for both directions: supply mhz to get bytes, or supply bcd_hex to get frequency. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the usage context is clear for a simple converter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.