Queries the negotiated MTU for a BLE connection and reports the useful per-packet payload, which equals MTU minus 3 bytes of ATT overhead.
Show the MTU agreed for a session; the useful per-packet payload is MTU minus three bytes of ATT overhead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout_s | No | ||
| connection_id | 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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful domain context (the ATT overhead calculation), which is genuinely helpful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the call blocks, what happens if the connection is missing, or whether a timeout is involved despite the timeout_s parameter.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. No filler, no repetition. The technical detail about overhead is concise and relevant.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, for a 2-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and no annotations, the description is thin. It omits the timeout behavior and any usage context, leaving notable gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.
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 0% and neither parameter is explained in the description. The required connection_id is intuitive from context, but timeout_s is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. With 2 parameters at 0% coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 (Show) and resource (MTU agreed for a session). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like lw_ble_read or lw_ble_write, which are data operations rather than link-layer introspection. The purpose is unambiguous, though it reads as a diagnostic call rather than part of a workflow.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The sibling lw_ble_connection_status might overlap, and the description offers no disambiguation, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an established connection), and no context on when an agent would call this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.