Retrieve the current state of a Siril session, including loaded image details, filename, dimensions, selection area, and working directory, to assess and manage ongoing image processing tasks.
Get live Siril state: loaded image, size, filename, selection, working directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is transparent that the tool is a read-only state query and lists what aspects of the state are surfaced. It does not discuss failure modes or whether the state may be empty, but the read-only nature is clearly evident from the verb and noun choice.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get live Siril state') and then efficiently lists the included fields. No wasted words or redundant information.
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 tool with an output schema available, the description is complete: it names the state dimensions returned and signals the live/current nature of the data. There is no missing operational context that would prevent an agent from invoking 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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify; a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description instead usefully lists the fields the agent can expect in the returned state, which complements the empty input schema.
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 ('Get') and resource ('live Siril state'), then enumerates the exact fields returned: loaded image, size, filename, selection, and working directory. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from siblings like get_preview or get_stats.
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 word 'live' implies this tool is for reading the current Siril state, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like siril_get_preview or siril_get_stats, nor any mention of when it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.