Reads and dismisses error dialogs from the active IC-CAP process to prevent modal UI errors from blocking automation.
Read Error Message dialogs from the selected IC-CAP process and dismiss them by default so modal UI errors do not leave automation blocked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dismiss | No | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that dialogs are dismissed by default, which is a side effect, and it explains the rationale (preventing automation blockage). It does not mention timeout behavior or what is done with the read messages, but the key behavior is transparent.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes the purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy.
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 description is adequate for a simple two-parameter tool, but it leaves 'timeout_seconds' undefined and does not specify what the tool returns when reading dialogs. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these gaps reduce completeness for an agent trying to invoke it correctly in all situations.
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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It adds context for 'dismiss' by noting dialogs are dismissed by default, but it says nothing about 'timeout_seconds' or its semantics. The description only partially explains the parameters.
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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('Error Message dialogs from the selected IC-CAP process'), and it clearly conveys the dismiss behavior and the automation-unblocking purpose. This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that deal with objects, sessions, jobs, or measurements.
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 description clearly implies the scenario: use this tool when error dialogs in the selected IC-CAP process may block automation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but given the tool's unique role among siblings, the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.