siglent-sds-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

project_status

Know which oscilloscope features are implemented and verified for remote control. Get the verification boundary to avoid unsupported operations.

Instructions

Return implementation status and verification boundary.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "project_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, any side effects, or what 'verification boundary' implies operationally. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, and the verb is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though the content is under-specified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete for the tool's apparent role. It does not clarify what 'implementation status' or 'verification boundary' mean in the context of this system, nor when to use it relative to the many sibling tools. The agent is left with insufficient context to decide if this tool is relevant.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially empty). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states an action ('Return') and a resource ('implementation status and verification boundary'), but the meaning of these terms is vague and not differentiated from sibling tools like get_acquisition_status_tcp. It is more specific than a pure tautology, but lacks clarity about what 'implementation status' and 'verification boundary' concretely refer to.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to guess when project_status is the appropriate choice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.