spriteloom_statusRead the local SpriteLoom service state without starting the model; returns backend, WebSocket URL, process ID, and ownership for status checks.
Read the local SpriteLoom service state. This never starts the model and returns state, backend, WebSocket URL, process ID, and ownership.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by asserting the call has no side effect on the model and by enumerating what is returned (state, backend, WebSocket URL, process ID, ownership).
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose plus the key non-behavior ('never starts the model') are front-loaded.
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 read with no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and the no-side-effect guarantee. It stops short of describing the shape or possible values of those fields, but that is a minor gap for this complexity level.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter hints are present.
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 ('Read') and resource ('local SpriteLoom service state'), and makes clear it is a pure read that never starts the model, which separates it from stop_service and the generation siblings. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.
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 phrase 'never starts the model' implies this is the safe way to inspect state before acting, but the description never explicitly says when to call it versus start/generate tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.