get_editor_statusRead live Blockbench connection, project, version, and format; returns connected:false when unavailable without simulating an editor.
Read live Blockbench connection, project, version and format. Returns connected:false when unavailable; never simulates an editor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| error | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is free. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the tool reports unavailability as connected:false rather than erroring, and it explicitly promises never to simulate an editor — an important anti-hallucination guarantee for an agent deciding whether downstream calls are safe.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is read, followed by the failure semantics. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is filler.
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?
An output schema exists and covers the return shape, so the description is not obliged to enumerate fields. Given the low complexity, the description plus annotations is nearly sufficient; the only soft gap is lack of guidance on how this relates to sibling inspection tools or whether it is cheap to poll.
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 no parameters, so the dimension hits the 0-param baseline of 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly avoids inventing parameter talk.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the resource set it reports on: connection, project, version and format. This is distinguishable from the inspection/creation siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with inspect_project, which is the nearest neighbour.
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 framing as a live 'status' read implies it is a preflight/health check before other operations, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative is named. The 'connected:false' clause conveys the failure branch, which is a partial substitute for usage guidance rather than full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.