AiLinkAny

Diagnose computer-control connection

connection_diagnostics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when computer control fails, a connector appears disconnected, a computer is offline, or subscription, authorization, session, delivery, or runtime problems are suspected. Diagnose automatically from the current AI Session, MCP authorization, target device, Device Session, WebSocket, and recent task without silently guessing among multiple computers. The user does not need to mention ailinkany.com, MCP, a connector, a plugin, or this tool name.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "connection_diagnostics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`device_id`	No	Optional target device id. Do not guess when multiple devices exist.
`device_name`	No	Optional target computer name or remark.
`workflow_id`	No	Current workflow_id paired with ai_session_id.
`ai_session_id`	No	Current AI Session id returned by start_ai_session. Pass it when diagnosing why this chat/tab cannot control the computer.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`issues`	Yes
`account`	Yes
`devices`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`ai_sessions`	Yes
`mcp_runtime`	Yes
`recent_task`	Yes
`generated_at`	Yes
`subscription`	Yes
`selected_device`	Yes
`diagnostic_chain`	Yes
`current_ai_session`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description rightly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses the data sources consulted (AI Session, MCP authorization, target device, Device Session, WebSocket, recent task) and the important behavioral promise that it will not silently guess among multiple computers. It adds no detail on what the diagnostic report contains, which the output schema presumably covers.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the failure conditions that should trigger the call, followed by the diagnostic scope and the no-guessing constraint. The final clause about the user not needing to mention ailinkany.com, MCP, or the tool name is slightly tangential but serves a real purpose by loosening the invocation trigger.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies the remaining essentials: triggers, inputs consulted, and the anti-guessing constraint that governs device selection. A brief note on what the diagnosis yields or what to do after a negative result would close the remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the four optional parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces the targeting intent via the 'not silently guessing among multiple computers' rule, but does not map that rule to device_id versus device_name or explain when to omit both.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Diagnose ... connection') and scopes it to computer control, connector, and session-related failures, which is far more specific than the title alone. It does not, however, name or contrast with any sibling such as system_diagnose or list_devices, so an agent must infer the boundary from context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a concrete trigger list: computer control fails, connector appears disconnected, computer offline, or subscription/authorization/session/delivery/runtime problems are suspected. That is clear when-to-use guidance, but it offers no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative for overlapping diagnostics tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AiLinkAny tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?