Verify if the DaVinci Resolve bridge is running. Returns an error when the bridge is not active, indicating the script needs to be launched inside Resolve.
Check if DaVinci Resolve bridge is running. The bridge script must be running inside Resolve via Workspace > Scripts > DaVinciResolveBridge. If this returns an error, the bridge is not running.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the error behavior: 'If this returns an error, the bridge is not running.' This is key behavioral information. However, it does not disclose what a successful response contains or whether the tool has any side effects, though 'check' implies a read-only operation. Still, the error semantics are clearly and usefully disclosed.
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 three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives the setup prerequisite, and the third explains error interpretation. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no filler or redundant phrases.
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 tool is simple with no parameters, no output schema, and no siblings. The description covers what the tool checks and how to interpret an error. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly describe the success response, but for a health-check tool, the error condition is the most critical information. The description is otherwise complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. According to the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and it doesn't waste space on it.
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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Check if DaVinci Resolve bridge is running.' The verb 'check' and resource 'DaVinci Resolve bridge' are specific and unambiguous. Since there are no sibling tools, there is no need for differentiation, and the description is fully self-contained.
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 provides clear usage context by explaining the prerequisite: the bridge script must be running inside Resolve via Workspace > Scripts > DaVinciResolveBridge. It also tells the agent how to interpret the result, which is effectively guidance for using the tool. There are no alternatives to contrast, so no exclusions are necessary, but it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you need to verify connectivity.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.