mne_describeShow a detailed summary of a named session object, listing channels, sampling frequency, montage, and bads. Use it to inspect key metadata before running analyses.
Show a detailed summary of one named session object (channels, sfreq, montage, bads, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. 'Show' implies a read-only summary, but the description does not explicitly state that the session is not modified, what happens for unknown names, or what the output contains beyond a few field examples.
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. The parenthetical list adds useful specificity, though the trailing 'etc.' is vague and slightly weakens the precision.
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 one parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it does not compensate for the missing schema description or provide enough context to distinguish this tool from similar session-inspection siblings, leaving it only minimally adequate.
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 single parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must clarify its meaning. It loosely identifies it as a 'named session object', but does not explain what constitutes a valid name, where it comes from, or how it relates to existing session objects.
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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('detailed summary of one named session object') and lists relevant fields like channels, sfreq, montage, and bads. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings such as mne_session_info or mne_get_info.
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?
No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over the many session-related siblings, nor are any exclusions or alternative tools mentioned. The only implied usage is 'one named session object', which does not help an agent decide between this and similar inspection tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.