Set the oscilloscope's scale, timebase, and trigger to fit connected signals, backing up the current setup first. Returns the backup path and new settings.
Let the scope choose scales, timebase and trigger for the connected signals, like the AUTO key. It replaces the user's setup, so it is backed up first. Returns the backup path and the new settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description explains what gets destroyed: it replaces the user's setup. It also notes that the setup is backed up first and describes the return value (backup path and new settings), adding significant value beyond annotations.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by the destructive action and the return value. No unnecessary content.
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 tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it states what it does, warns about replacement, mentions backup, and lists returns. No output schema exists, so including return info is beneficial.
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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it configures scales, timebase, and trigger settings for connected signals, analogous to pressing the AUTO key. This distinguishes it from configuration siblings like configure_channel or configure_timebase.
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 the tool automates setup like an AUTO key, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs manual configuration tools, nor when not to. Implicit usage only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.