Check whether Freebuff and bridge capabilities are available to enable coordinated message passing and session management across connected coding agents.
Detect Freebuff and bridge capabilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.18Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Detect' is consistent with that, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as what a successful or failed detection looks like or what the returned status actually contains.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. For a zero-parameter capability check, this is an appropriately sized and well-structured description.
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 no-parameter, read-only status tool the description is nearly sufficient, but there is no output schema and no explanation of how the returned capabilities are represented or what 'Freebuff' and 'bridge' actually refer to. It tells an agent what the tool is for, but not enough about the result to be fully self-contained.
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?
This tool has zero parameters and the schema fully documents that, so no parameter explanation is needed. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.
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 ('Detect') and names a clear resource ('Freebuff and bridge capabilities'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on projects, threads, and messages. However, 'Freebuff' and 'bridge capabilities' are undefined domain terms, so the purpose is clear in outline but not fully precise.
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 guidance is given about when to call this tool, when not to call it, or how it relates to alternatives. The only implied context is 'when you need capability status,' but that is not stated explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.