Check if the browser session is running, which Innoslate project is current, and whether the login is still valid before reading or writing data.
Is the browser running, which project is current, is the login still valid.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine behavioral context by listing the three checks it performs, which tells the agent what state information comes back, but it says nothing about return format or how to act on a negative result.
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 compact sentence with three clauses, zero filler, and the essential content front-loaded. Slightly informal question phrasing rather than declarative statements keeps it from a 5, but it wastes nothing.
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 status probe with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to decide to call it. It is complete enough; only the follow-up routing is absent.
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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter information is missing.
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 enumerates three concrete things the tool reports (browser running state, current project, login validity), so an agent can tell it is a status/diagnostic probe. It is not phrased as a verb+resource and does not name a sibling, keeping it short of a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named (e.g. innoslate_login when the login is invalid, or innoslate_initialize when the browser is not running). The diagnostic intent can be inferred from the questions, but nothing routes the agent to the right follow-up tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.