Query read-only runtime package, protocol, engine, transport, and limit data to verify PowerShell execution capabilities without exposing identity, environment, or secrets.
Read-only runtime package, protocol, supported and available engines, transports and limits; no identity, environment or secrets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description does useful work by stating that the operation is read-only and excludes identity, environment, and secrets. However, it does not describe authentication requirements, rate limits, or response structure, leaving some behavioral context unaddressed.
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 tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and lists the returned information categories without wasted words.
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 read-only capability-inspection tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently lists the categories of information returned and excludes sensitive areas. It could be slightly more complete by indicating the response shape or granularity, but the core context is present.
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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently simple and the schema is fully covered. The baseline score of 4 applies because there are no parameter meanings for the description to clarify.
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 resource and enumerates what it covers: runtime package, protocol, engines, transports, and limits. It also states exclusions, making the scope clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling system_info tool.
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 implies the tool is for reading runtime capabilities, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as system_info. It also provides no when-not-to-use conditions beyond the scope exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.