Remove one measurement item by position or clear all items from the oscilloscope's bottom measurement bar, including user-added ones.
Remove one item (1-5, left to right) or, by default, all items from the measurement bar at the bottom of the scope's screen. That includes items the user added.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that by warning that user-added items are also destroyed, which is not derivable from the annotations. It stops short of stating irreversibility or any confirmation requirement.
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, front-loaded with the operation and its modes. The trailing sentence about user-added items is short and earns its place as a behavioral warning, though the sentence is split awkwardly mid-clause by the parenthetical.
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?
With no output schema, one optional parameter, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what is missing: parameter domain, default behavior, and the scope of destruction. It could still mention out-of-range handling, but nothing essential for correct invocation is absent.
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% and the parameter is an undocumented integer with a null default, so the description carries the full burden. It fully specifies the domain: item is 1-5, ordered left to right, and null/omitted means all items.
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?
States a specific verb (remove) and resource (items from the measurement bar), including its physical location on the scope screen. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like measure, screenshot, or reset 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?
Explains the two invocation modes clearly: pass item to remove one, or omit it to remove all by default. It does not name or compare against sibling tools, but the branching behavior of its own parameter is fully described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.