comprobar_estado_localCheck the local workspace status, folder, permissions, and active protections before reading, writing, or managing authorized files via the MCP tunnel.
Devuelve estado, carpeta, permisos y protecciones activas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned categories (state, folder, permissions, active protections), which helps the agent understand what information the tool surfaces beyond generic safety metadata.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every listed item (state, folder, permissions, active protections) contributes to telling the agent what the tool returns.
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 parameterless, read-only diagnostic tool with rich annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It lists return categories without explaining what 'local state' means, how the data is structured, or when the tool should be invoked, and there is no output schema to compensate.
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 are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the scoring baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 is appropriate even though the empty schema fully covers the input structure.
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 a clear retrieval verb ('Devuelve') and names specific return categories: state, folder, permissions, and active protections. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the file-management siblings, but none of them are similarly scoped diagnostic tools.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither states a use case nor names sibling tools or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.