get_bridge_statusCheck whether CraftGraph is connected to Minecraft and report cached recipe count and data version. Use it first when tools report connection errors or recipe lookups return nothing.
检查 CraftGraph 是否连上了 Minecraft、缓存了多少条配方、数据版本是多少。任何其他工具报错说连不上游戏时，先用这个确认状态。用户问「为什么查不到配方」时也先调这个。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the three pieces of state returned (connection, cache size, data version) and frames it as a check, implying a safe read. It does not describe the failure/return shape explicitly or any side effects, but for a zero-param status probe the disclosure is strong.
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 compact sentences: the first states what is reported, the second front-loads the diagnostic use case. No filler, and the actionable guidance follows immediately.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description supplies enough: it enumerates the status fields and states the diagnostic role. An agent knows both what it gets and why to call it.
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. The schema is empty and the description correctly does not invent parameter detail.
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 names a specific verb and set of resources it reports on: whether CraftGraph is connected to Minecraft, how many recipes are cached, and the data version. No sibling tool does status/diagnostics, so an agent can distinguish it immediately from refresh_recipes or search_items.
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?
It gives explicit triggering conditions: call it first when any other tool reports it cannot connect to the game, and call it when the user asks why recipes cannot be found. This routes the agent to it as a diagnostic prerequisite rather than leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.