Retrieve the current pipeline state as structured JSON from AGENTHUB_STATE_FILE if set, or return sample in-memory data otherwise.
Return the current pipeline state as structured JSON. Reads the file given by AGENTHUB_STATE_FILE if set; otherwise returns in-memory state, which is flagged with is_sample_data=true.
| 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?
Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it explains the data source precedence (AGENTHUB_STATE_FILE vs in-memory) and, crucially, that in-memory returns are flagged with is_sample_data=true. That is a non-obvious trait an agent needs to trust the output.
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 tight sentences. The primary behavior (return pipeline state as JSON) is front-loaded, with the data-source nuance following. Every clause earns its place.
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-param read tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers behavior and the sample-data caveat well. The one gap is the absence of any routing guidance versus the sibling status/monitor tools.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed and instead explains the environment variable that governs behavior, adding value where there is no schema surface to document.
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+resource: return the current pipeline state as structured JSON. It distinguishes itself from trigger_action (mutation) by being a read. However it does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
No when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. It doesn't mention show_agenthub_monitor, which is the obvious sibling an agent might confuse this with, nor does it say when this tool is preferable. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.