Sends any UDS request as hex bytes (e.g. "22 F1 90") and returns the raw ECU response, enabling diagnostic services that lack a dedicated tool.
Send any UDS request as hex bytes, e.g. "22 F1 90", and get the raw response. Use it for services without a dedicated tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_hex | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool sends arbitrary raw hex and returns the raw response, but it does not warn that raw UDS requests may include write, security-access, reset, or other destructive operations, nor does it mention validation, permissions, or side effects.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the routing condition. The example earns its place and there is no unnecessary text.
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 output schema means return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is adequately illustrated. However, for a raw UDS escape hatch with no annotations, the description should do more to disclose safety implications and side effects.
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% and the only parameter is named only as Request Hex in the schema. The description compensates well by saying the input is hex bytes and giving a concrete example, though it leaves spacing and formatting conventions implicit.
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 and resource: send a raw UDS request as hex bytes and get the raw response. The example "22 F1 90" and the note to use it for services without a dedicated tool distinguish it clearly from the dedicated diagnostic siblings.
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?
Explicitly says to use it for services without a dedicated tool, which is clear routing guidance against the sibling tools. It does not add when-not-to-use cautions or prerequisites, but the core usage condition is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.