Diagnose local usage stats: gated-read ledger summaries, captcha breaker state, resume budget, and cache hit counts—no network needed.
Local diagnostics: gated-read ledger / JSONL log summary, captcha breaker state, resume budget, cache hit counts. No network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Return JSON instead of the compact Russian summary. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose meaningful context: the tool makes no network requests, reads locally gated data, and reports several specific state categories. It doesn't fully explain what 'gated-read' means or exactly how each reported value behaves, but it goes well beyond a bare description.
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 one compact sentence, front-loads the core category ('Local diagnostics'), itemizes the contents, and ends with a crucial safety constraint ('No network'). There is no filler or redundancy; every part earns its place.
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—one optional parameter, no output schema—and the description lists the major content areas and the default vs JSON output formats. It is mostly complete for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it, though the meaning of 'gated-read ledger' and 'captcha breaker state' remains somewhat opaque without further detail.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the score lands at the baseline of 3. The single boolean parameter 'raw' is well described in the schema as choosing JSON over the compact Russian summary. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, but none are needed given the schema's clarity.
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 makes the tool's purpose clear: it provides a local diagnostics summary of specific things—ledger/log entries, captcha breaker state, resume budget, and cache hit counts. 'No network' clearly differentiates it from the many sibling tools that call remote HH APIs, though there is no explicit verb like 'returns' or 'summarizes'.
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?
Usage context is implied rather than explicit. Saying 'Local diagnostics' and 'No network' signals the agent to use this for local state inspection rather than remote API calls, but the description doesn't explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no named sibling tools or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.