beacon_agent_statusRetrieve detailed status for a specific Beacon agent by providing its agent ID, enabling monitoring of agent health and activity on the RustChain network.
Get detailed status of a specific Beacon agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | The agent ID to look up (e.g., "bcn_sophia_elya", "relay_sh_my_agent") |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' and 'status' imply a read-only lookup, but the description does not state prerequisites, potential errors, or whether any side effects are involved. It is adequate for a simple getter but not rich in behavioral context.
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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded. There is no wasted text, and for a tool with one parameter it is appropriately sized.
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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. Still, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus Beacon discovery or network-level stats, and does not clarify what 'detailed status' includes. It is minimally complete but leaves contextual gaps.
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 input schema fully documents the single agent_id parameter with an example, so the description adds no additional param meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Get detailed status of a specific Beacon agent.' The word 'specific' distinguishes this from broader Beacon tools like beacon_discover or beacon_network_stats, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling.
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?
The intended use is implied: use this when you need status information about one particular Beacon agent. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to related tools like beacon_discover, beacon_heartbeat, or beacon_network_stats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.