Decode a Bambu Lab HMS code or print_error into plain text, then use hms_import to load a full lookup table when the built-in list is too small.
Decode an HMS code (0700_8000_0002_0001 or 16 hex digits) or a print_error (8 hex digits). The built-in table is tiny; load a full one with hms_import.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden. It usefully discloses a real behavioral limitation (the built-in table is tiny), but says nothing about what a decode produces, whether misses are errors or empty results, or any permission/latency traits.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the accepted formats front-loaded and the sibling cross-reference last. Every clause earns its place.
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?
No annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source of truth, and it omits what a successful decode returns (error name, severity, remedy) and how failures surface. Adequate for invocation, incomplete for interpreting results.
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 param 'code' is bare, but the description compensates by giving concrete accepted grammars: '0700_8000_0002_0001', 16 hex digits, or an 8-hex-digit print_error. That is real input-format meaning beyond the schema, short of full completeness.
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 names a specific verb (decode) and both accepted resource forms (HMS code, print_error), and it explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling hms_import. An agent can pick this tool over hms_active or hms_import without opening any schema.
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?
It states the condition that selects the alternative ('The built-in table is tiny; load a full one with hms_import'), which is genuine routing guidance. It never states when not to use lookup or what happens if the code is absent from the tiny table, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.