Check the progress of the automated game loop, including round number, humanity score, votes cast, messages sent, and error count, to verify status and identify problems.
检查当前自动玩游戏循环的进度：轮次、人性分、已投票数、已发送消息数、错误数。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a non-mutating inspection action ('检查' / 'check') and reveals the concrete data the caller can expect. It could further state that this read has no side effects on the auto-play loop, but the field list already provides meaningful behavioral detail beyond the tool name.
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, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and immediately lists the relevant metrics. Every part of the description earns its place, with no filler or repetition.
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 status read with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and the general domain. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying behavior when no auto-play loop is active, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to call it correctly.
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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to explain about parameters, and the empty schema is fully consistent with the tool's status-check purpose.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'check the current auto-play loop progress' and enumerates the exact reported fields (rounds, humanity score, votes cast, messages sent, errors). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like auto_play, stop_auto_play, and get_round_status.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as check_session_status or get_round_status. The intended context is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated, and there are no exclusions or alternative routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.