Set a specific crosspoint on a Pickering PXI/LXI switch to open or closed state, with bounds and interlock checks to ensure safe signal routing.
Operate one crosspoint directly. Still bounds-checked and interlock-checked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| row | Yes | ||
| card | Yes | ||
| state | Yes | ||
| token | Yes | ||
| column | Yes | ||
| subunit | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that bounds-checking and interlock-checking are 'still' applied, which is useful safety-relevant behavior, but it omits side effects, failure behavior, permissions, or what happens when the interlock is not satisfied.
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?
The description is very short, with both sentences contributing: the first states the action and scope, the second adds safety behavior. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though it sacrifices useful detail.
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?
Six required parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions demand more context than this. The tool likely interacts with interlock/reservation concepts given sibling tools like arm_interlock and reserve_chassis, but the description does not explain prerequisites or invocation context beyond noting that checks are still performed.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for 6 parameters, and the description adds no parameter-level guidance. 'One crosspoint directly' loosely maps to card/subunit/row/column, but state, token, and exact addressing semantics are left entirely to inference from parameter names.
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 states the tool acts on 'one crosspoint directly,' naming a specific resource and distinguishing it from route-level operations. 'Operate' is somewhat generic, but the tool name and the presence of a state parameter make the intent clear enough.
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?
'Directly' implies this is for manipulating a single crosspoint rather than using higher-level routing tools like route_signal, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over an alternative. The safety note about bounds/interlock checks gives some context but no clear exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.