Read current channel, timebase, trigger, and acquisition settings from a Rigol oscilloscope, returning SI values in volts, seconds, and samples per second.
Channel (on/off, V/div, offset, coupling, probe ratio), timebase, trigger and acquisition settings. Values are SI: volts, seconds, samples per second.
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail the annotations can't: all values are SI units (volts, seconds, samples per second), which tells the agent how to interpret and compare returned numbers.
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 short sentences, no filler, with the resource scope front-loaded and the unit convention as a compact second sentence that 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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does list the four settings groups plus the unit convention. It does not describe the return structure (per-channel grouping, scalar vs. structured values), which is the only remaining gap for a zero-parameter read tool.
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 the baseline is 4. The schema confirms an empty properties object, and the description correctly implies the call is unparameterized and returns a fixed set of settings.
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?
Names a specific verb (get) and resource (settings) and enumerates the domains covered: channel, timebase, trigger and acquisition configuration. This makes it clearly the read counterpart to configure_channel/configure_timebase/configure_trigger/configure_acquisition, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is how you read current instrument state before deciding what to configure. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the configure_* alternatives, so routing must be inferred from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.