Reads a BLE descriptor's raw bytes using its attribute handle, which you get from lw_ble_discover. Use it to inspect descriptor values after a characteristic discovery.
Read a descriptor's bytes by its attribute handle; handles come from lw_ble_discover.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | ||
| 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 burden. The verb 'read' makes the non-mutating nature inferable and the handle provenance is disclosed, but it says nothing about error behavior for invalid/foreign handles, connection prerequisites, or how the timeout affects the operation.
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 with the operation and its key parameter front-loaded, and the dependency clue appended without waste. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 need not be explained. Still, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the connection_id and timeout parameters and the failure modes unaddressed, which is a real gap for an agent wiring this into a BLE session.
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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It explains the 'handle' parameter's origin well, but leaves 'connection_id' (which connection to target) and 'timeout_s' (default 10, in seconds) completely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 ('Read a descriptor's bytes') plus the keying parameter ('by its attribute handle'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling lw_ble_read that works on characteristics. It does not name that sibling, so it falls short of explicit differentiation.
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?
Provides a useful prerequisite/pipeline hint ('handles come from lw_ble_discover'), telling the agent how to obtain the required handle. However, it gives no when-to-use versus lw_ble_read, no when-not-to-use, and no note that an active connection must exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.