system1_laya_infoRetrieve the Laya model path, source, execution providers, and loaded configuration to inspect or verify the local System-1 decision setup.
[system1] Return Laya model path, source, execution providers and loaded config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that the return is static model metadata (path, source, providers, config), which is modest value beyond the annotations but says nothing about cost, loading side effects, or failure when no model is loaded.
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 the field list up front and no filler. The '[system1]' prefix is a namespace tag rather than wasted prose, so nothing detracts.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so by enumerating the four returned fields. For a zero-parameter read tool that is essentially complete; only edge behavior (e.g., unloaded model) is unstated.
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 the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter meaning is missing.
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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('Laya model') and enumerates the payload (path, source, execution providers, loaded config), which distinguishes it in spirit from the sibling laya_analyze and laya_health tools. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the metadata/inventory call versus the analyze and health siblings because of the enumerated fields. There is no statement of when to prefer it, no prerequisites, and no exclusion of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.