Retrieve the connected Senseca PRO thermometer's model, serial number, firmware version, UTC clock, and battery level to verify device identity and status before measurements.
Instrument model, serial number, firmware, clock (UTC) and battery level.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minor value by naming the clock as UTC, but that is return-content detail rather than behavioral context, and an output schema already exists to carry it.
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?
It is short and free of waste, but it is a sentence fragment with no leading verb, so the most important information (what the tool does) is never front-loaded. Listing fields first inverts the natural order.
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?
Return values are covered by the existing output schema and annotations cover the safety profile, so little is strictly required. Still, a zero-parameter metadata tool should state in one clause that it returns the connected instrument's identity/status rather than just enumerating fields.
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; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly doesn't invent parameters.
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 is a noun-phrase list of fields ('Instrument model, serial number, firmware, clock (UTC) and battery level') with no verb, so it never states that the tool retrieves device information. The field list does imply the resource and distinguishes it from the temperature/resistance siblings, but the action is only inferable from the tool name.
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 read_temperature, read_resistance, or sample_temperature, and no prerequisites or conditions stated. The agent must infer from the tool name that this is the device-metadata path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.