Retrieve details for a managed Slurm session: allocation status, job ID, assigned nodes, and log tail.
查看某个托管会话详情：分配状态、job_id、节点、日志尾部。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| purpose | Yes | ||
| connection | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the field list (status, job_id, node, log tail), which largely duplicates the return contract already described by the output schema, and says nothing about auth needs, session lifetime, or error behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is appropriately sized for a read-only lookup, though the enumerated return fields are arguably redundant with the output schema.
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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with two mandatory parameters at 0% coverage and no parameter or usage explanation anywhere, the definition leaves a real gap in how to invoke the tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for two required parameters (connection, purpose), and the description provides no meaning for either. Critically, neither parameter obviously identifies which session is being inspected despite '某个托管会话' implying a session selector — an agent gets no help resolving this ambiguity from the text.
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 states a specific verb+resource (查看某个托管会话详情) and enumerates what is shown: allocation status, job_id, node, log tail. This implicitly distinguishes it from session_list (list vs. single-session detail), but it never names the sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are mentioned. session_list and session_release exist as obvious siblings, yet the description gives no condition for choosing session_info over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.