Check register values inherited from boot ROM at PC=$0100 to identify deterministic and non-deterministic states per Game Boy model.
Report the register values a ROM inherits from the boot ROM at PC=$0100.
Tells you what state the entry point can rely on, and which values are non-deterministic on a given model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | DMG0, DMG, MGB, SGB, SGB2, CGB or AGB. Omit for all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the action is to 'Report' and 'Tells', clearly indicating a read-only informational tool. It also discloses the nuance about non-deterministic values, making its behavior transparent.
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 two concise sentences. The first states the primary action, and the second adds useful nuance about determinism. No redundancies or unnecessary details are present.
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?
The description is complete for the tool's simple nature: it states the purpose and the key nuance about model-dependent non-determinism. It does not enumerate which specific registers are reported or the output format, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema.
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 schema description for the single 'model' parameter already covers 100% of its semantics, listing valid values and the meaning of omission. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
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 ('Report') and clearly identifies the target: register values inherited from the boot ROM at PC=$0100. It distinguishes itself from other register-related tools by focusing on boot state and entry-point determinism.
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 implies the intended usage scenario: when you need to know the reliable register state at the ROM entry point and which values are non-deterministic per model. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.