Verify whether the VoiceStudio backend is running and identify the active GPU device before starting speech workflows.
Check if the VoiceStudio backend is running and what GPU device is active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 behavioral burden, but this is a zero-parameter read-only probe where the risk surface is inherently small. It does disclose the two things the response covers (running state, active GPU), yet never states it is non-mutating or whether it is safe to poll repeatedly.
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?
One front-loaded sentence naming both outputs with zero filler. Perfectly sized for a trivial probe.
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 the description need not explain return values, and it correctly names the two pieces of information returned. The only gap is the missing relationship to the overlapping voicestudio_status sibling.
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 schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter confusion is possible.
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+resource: checks backend liveness and reports the active GPU device. That is more informative than a bare 'health check'. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling voicestudio_status, which plausibly overlaps with this tool.
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 at all: nothing says whether to call this before a job, on failure, or how it relates to voicestudio_status. The only usage signal is implied by the word 'check'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.