Adjust oscilloscope timebase horizontally by setting scale per division and position. Omitted parameters remain unchanged; read back values to confirm actual settings.
Configure the horizontal axis (timebase). Omitted items are left unchanged.
Specify at least one item to change. The device may snap values, so trust applied (the read-back value).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| position_s | No | ||
| scale_s_per_div | No |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does well: it explains partial updates, the minimum requirement, the possibility of value snapping, and advises trusting the read-back value. This gives the agent important expectations about device behavior beyond the basic input schema.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with each sentence earning its place: purpose, partial-update semantics, validation requirement, and a behavioral warning. No redundant or filler content exists.
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 description gives essential behavioral context and implies a read-back value, but it does not explain prerequisites, return structure, or parameter semantics. For a simple two-parameter configure tool it is adequate, yet the lack of parameter explanation and explicit usage guidance leaves some gaps.
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 should compensate by explaining parameter meanings, but it does not mention position_s or scale_s_per_div explicitly. It refers to 'items' generically, leaving the agent to rely on the schema titles with no additional semantic guidance.
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 clearly states the action ('Configure') and the resource ('horizontal axis (timebase)'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It is also distinct from sibling configure tools like configure_channel, configure_trigger, and configure_decode, so an agent can tell them apart.
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?
The description implies this tool is for changing timebase settings, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The 'Specify at least one item to change' line is useful, but there is no direct comparison to other configure tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.