Check available CLI tools, extension connection status, and whether features are functional or stub-only; use verbose mode to list LSP names instead of counts.
Available CLI tools, ext connection state, and which features are functional vs stub-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verbose | No | When true, expand lsp category to a name array instead of a count. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.3Input schema / properties / verboseAdded value: +{
+ "description": "When true, expand lsp category to a name array instead of a count.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that by disclosing that the output distinguishes functional features from stub-only ones, but it says nothing about the shape, size, or stability of that report and there is no output schema to fill the gap.
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?
One compact sentence with the most important content (what it reports) front-loaded and zero filler. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a full statement of action, which is a minor structural weakness but costs no clarity.
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 read-only, zero-required-parameter introspection tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials. However, with no output schema, the agent gets no sense of what the returned categories or counts look like, and no guidance on when this tool is the right entry point.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'verbose' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its effect on the lsp category. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 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 names the specific resource it reports on — available CLI tools, extension connection state, and functional vs stub-only feature status. That is concrete and distinguishable from neighbors like getBridgeStatus or getConnectorStatus, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus bridgeDoctor, getBridgeStatus, or searchTools, and no mention of prerequisites. The only guidance is implicit — an agent might infer it is a preflight capability check — which leaves routing ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.