Returns what the user is looking at — route, entity type/id/name, selection. Use ONLY when they ask what page they are on, or when the block in your instructions reads "(none …)". When already names an entity this returns the SAME data — it wastes the turn; never call it before editing or deleting that entity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool is a read/inspection operation with no side effects, and it adds useful context that the result duplicates the existing <page_context> block and that calling it unnecessarily wastes a turn. It does not explicitly mention permissions or error behavior, though those are less critical for a zero-parameter context reader.
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: the return content comes first, followed by precise usage conditions and a caution against wasted calls. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or restating of the tool name.
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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it defines what is returned, when to use it, when not to use it, and why. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and avoid unnecessary calls.
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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially complete. Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output rather than parameters.
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 names a specific verb ('Returns') and a concrete resource: what the user is looking at, including route, entity type/id/name, and selection. This clearly distinguishes it from the many action-oriented sibling tools, and the 'Use ONLY when' clause reinforces its unique role.
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 explicitly states when to call it — when the user asks what page they are on or when the <page_context> block reads '(none …)' — and when not to call it: when <page_context> already names an entity. This is direct, actionable routing guidance that leaves little to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
