Configure rail trip limits for overcurrent and undervoltage protection: set overcurrent up to 7500 mA and an optional undervoltage threshold; use 0 to disable either limit.
Set the rail trip limits (0 disables either). Overcurrent is capped at 7500 mA: the board's continuous budget is ~5 A. Resets at power-up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| overcurrent_ma | Yes | ||
| undervoltage_mv | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantive work: it discloses the 7500 mA hard cap, the ~5 A continuous budget as practical context, and that settings reset at power-up (non-persistent). It stops short of saying what happens on a trip or who consumes the resulting fault, but the safety-critical behavior is well conveyed.
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?
Three tight sentences with zero filler; the disable rule and safety cap are front-loaded and the persistence note closes cleanly.
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?
A hardware-mutating, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool needs strong behavioral coverage. The description covers caps and persistence but omits trip behavior, undervoltage semantics, and any return/confirmation detail an agent might want.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies overcurrent_ma's cap (7500 mA) and that 0 disables both limits, but adds nothing about undervoltage_mv's range or behavior beyond the disable case, leaving one parameter largely undocumented by the name alone.
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 (Set) and resource (rail trip limits), making clear it configures protection thresholds rather than measuring or clearing faults like its siblings. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 parenthetical '(0 disables either)' gives a useful operating hint on how to turn off a limit, but there is no guidance on when to call this versus siblings like clear_faults or measure_current, nor any prerequisite context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.