Lists supported ESP32 chips, boards, displays, peripherals, and capabilities, optionally filtered by chip family, to help select emulator targets.
Returns the catalogue of all supported ESP32 chips, boards, displays, peripherals and capabilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chip | No | Filter boards by chip family. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Returns the catalogue' implies a safe, read-only lookup, which is the key behavioral trait, but it does not disclose whether a running simulator/session is required, whether the data is static, or any other operational constraint.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead, and every word 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?
For a one-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, enumerating the catalogue's contents (chips, boards, displays, peripherals, capabilities) is reasonably complete. The main gap is that the optional chip filter is not acknowledged, which could matter for the agent's filtering decision.
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 100% and the single 'chip' parameter has a documented enum, so the schema already explains filtering. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, and saying it returns the catalogue of 'all' chips arguably understates the existence of the filter; baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Returns') and a concrete resource (catalogue of ESP32 chips, boards, displays, peripherals, capabilities). The resource is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the action-oriented siblings (sim_run, sim_script, sim_expect, sim_screenshot, sim_doctor), but the description never names or contrasts with them.
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 listing/catalogue nature implies a discovery use case, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the simulation siblings, and no mention that the 'chip' filter can be used to narrow the catalogue, which is the one meaningful usage decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.