get_generator_statusCheck whether the local image generation server is running, the model is loaded, and view GPU, VRAM, active job, and queue status.
Whether the local inference server is running and the model loaded, GPU and VRAM, the active job and the queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about what status data is available (server, model, GPU, VRAM, job, queue), but does not disclose return format, latency, or error behavior.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, listing the status categories efficiently. The structure is a noun-clause fragment rather than a full sentence, but it remains clear and appropriately sized for the tool's scope.
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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values; it covers the major status categories an agent would need (server, model, GPU/VRAM, active job, queue). It does not detail exact response fields or formatting, but given the tool's low complexity and richness of annotations, the coverage is 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is no parameter information to add or evaluate, and the empty schema is fully consistent with the description.
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 clearly states this tool reports generator status and enumerates the key status components: local server running, model loaded, GPU/VRAM, active job, and queue. It distinguishes itself from the generation/edit siblings by being the only status-query tool, though it does not explicitly name or route away from get_image_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?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It implies a status-checking use through the listed return content, but there is no statement such as 'use before generate_image to verify readiness' or 'use instead of get_image_info when checking server health.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.