Inspect the Comfy Colab session state, active profile, generation progress, remaining time, and Compute Unit balance before waking or stopping the gateway.
Inspect the Comfy Colab session state, active profile, progress, remaining time, and Compute Unit balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Inspect" signals a read-only, side-effect-free operation and the enumerated fields effectively describe what the caller gets back, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It does not state whether polling is cheap, whether it consumes Compute Units, or how fresh the reported progress is, which leaves real behavioral gaps.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the returned data listed after. No filler, no redundancy, and every clause names a distinct piece of state an agent would want.
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 status tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing piece: what data comes back. Completeness would be higher if it noted the absence of side effects or how often it is reasonable to poll during a long generation.
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 of 4 applies; no parameter meaning is missing or contradicted.
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?
"Inspect" is a specific verb and the description enumerates the exact resources returned: session state, active profile, progress, remaining time, and Compute Unit balance. This clearly separates it from siblings gate_wake, gate_generate, and gate_stop, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 read-only inspection framing implies the natural use case (checking session state before spending time or Compute Units via gate_generate), but the description never states when to call it versus the alternatives or any preconditions. Guidance is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.