Connect a serial port by specifying port and baud rate so AI assistants can read device logs and send commands, opening a new terminal window when needed.
Connect a serial port. If every existing window is already using another port, a new window is opened for this one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | Yes | Port to connect, for example COM3 or /dev/ttyUSB0 | |
| baudrate | Yes | Baud rate, for example 115200 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the non-obvious window-opening behavior when all existing windows use another port, but omits failure behavior, connection-state handling, or whether an existing connection is replaced.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a concise behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
The tool is low-complexity with two required, fully documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose and a key window behavior, but for an unannotated tool it lacks error handling and connection-state context that an agent might need.
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 both required parameters are documented with examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Connect') and resource ('serial port'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like disconnect_serial and send_serial_data. It does not explicitly name a sibling or clarify scope conditions, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied by the tool name and action; there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_serial_ports, disconnect_serial, or send_serial_data. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.