Save the Rigol oscilloscope's full setup to a file and return the path, enabling later restoration via restore_setup.
Save the scope's whole setup to a file and return its path; restore_setup(path) brings it back.
| 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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description says the tool writes the setup 'to a file' — a filesystem side effect that a read-only tool should not have, creating tension with the declared annotation profile. Beyond that tension, the description does convey a useful behavioral fact (the call returns a path) that annotations do not cover.
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?
A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action and then the round-trip relationship. Nothing could be removed without losing routing information.
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 no output schema, the description covers both the action and how the result is consumed (path -> restore_setup), which is what an agent needs. It does not say where the file lives or in what format, but that is minor for this level of complexity.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing needs explaining. The description usefully notes the output is a path, which is context for how the call is used downstream by restore_setup(path).
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 and resource ('Save the scope's whole setup to a file') and names the complementary sibling restore_setup, so an agent can distinguish it from the many configure_* / get_* siblings immediately.
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 pairs the tool with its counterpart explicitly ('restore_setup(path) brings it back'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice in a save/restore workflow. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., vs. get_settings for inspecting values without persisting).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.