Inspect status of Pi RPC workers: view each worker's state, elapsed time, last action, and files touched to monitor progress and manage orchestration.
One line per worker: state, elapsed, last action, files touched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the returned fields (state, elapsed, last action, files touched), which is genuinely useful behavioral context given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about read-only safety, whether it blocks, or freshness/caching of the status data.
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 tight sentence with zero filler, and the most important information (per-worker line format) is front-loaded. It is perhaps too terse to earn a 5, but every word earns its place.
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 needs to describe return values, and it does so adequately by enumerating the per-worker fields. With zero parameters and a simple read operation, the main missing piece is when to prefer this over pi_wait/pi_digest.
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, which is the baseline-4 case. Nothing in the description contradicts or misleads about invocation, so no penalty 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 conveys that this tool reports status, but does so indirectly through the return format ('one line per worker: state, elapsed, last action, files touched') rather than stating a verb+resource like 'report worker status'. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as pi_wait, pi_digest, or pi_dict, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
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 guidance on when to call this versus the many sibling tools (pi_wait, pi_digest, pi_dict, pi_diff). No prerequisites, timing, or exclusion conditions are stated; the agent must guess the use case from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.