List all active BLE notification streams held by the server. Use it to audit active subscriptions during Bluetooth Low Energy debugging.
Show every notification stream the server is currently holding.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 burden. 'Show' and 'currently holding' imply a non-mutating snapshot of live state, which is useful framing, but it never states this is read-only, whether the list reflects only this session's subscriptions, or how stale the snapshot is. Adequate for a zero-param read, but thin.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word ('every', 'currently', 'holding') does work.
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 described, and there are no parameters to document. The only missing piece is how this list relates to lw_ble_unsubscribe and lw_ble_subscribe, which would help an agent act on the result.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies per the zero-param rule.
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?
Names a specific verb ('show') and resource ('notification stream'), and the word 'every' conveys exhaustive listing of current subscriptions. It is distinguishable from sibling lw_ble_subscribe (which creates streams) and lw_ble_poll_notifications/lw_ble_wait_notification (which consume them), though it does not explicitly name those 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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as lw_ble_connection_list or lw_ble_unsubscribe. The agent must infer that this is the introspection call to run before tearing down subscriptions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.