Verifies whether the Marmoset Toolbag plugin is reachable and reports version, graphics adapter, scene path, counts, port, Python switch, and call counter.
Toolbag version, graphics adapter, scene path, counts and plugin state (port, Python switch, call counter). Start here: it tells whether the plugin is reachable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value on top by framing the call as a reachability probe and naming the plugin-state fields (port, Python switch, call counter) that indicate health.
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 sentences, no filler, and the diagnostic framing ('Start here') is placed after the field list but still prominent. The parenthetical field grouping is dense but informative rather than wasteful.
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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description need only say what the tool is and when to reach for it, which it does. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing; only explicit routing versus sibling info tools 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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is empty and fully described. Baseline 4 applies.
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 exactly what the tool reports (Toolbag version, graphics adapter, scene path, counts, plugin state including port/Python switch/call counter), which is well beyond the bare name 'status'. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like capabilities or scene_info, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
'Start here: it tells whether the plugin is reachable' gives a concrete condition for selecting this tool as a first diagnostic step. It does not state when to prefer capabilities or scene_info instead, so no exclusion guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.