Fetch the current IC-CAP status window text to monitor optimizer progress without modifying the project. Use this to inspect live simulation or optimization status directly.
Read the current IC-CAP Status window text and parse optimizer progress without modifying the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_chars | No | Maximum trailing status characters to return |
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 safety disclosure burden and it does so by explicitly stating 'without modifying the project.' It also clarifies that the tool both reads text and parses optimizer progress, making its behavior fairly transparent for a simple read-only tool.
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 sentence front-loads the action and resource, adds the parsing purpose, and states the non-modifying behavior. There is no redundant or filler content.
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?
For a one-optional-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose and side-effect profile, but there is no output schema and the description does not explicitly state the return shape (raw text vs parsed progress). An agent must infer the response format.
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 already documents max_chars fully ('Maximum trailing status characters to return'), so description-level parameter guidance is unnecessary. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline for 100% schema coverage.
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 names a concrete resource ('IC-CAP Status window text') plus a parsing goal. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly position itself against related status/health tools such as iccap_health or iccap_error_dialog_get.
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 read-only phrasing and 'parse optimizer progress' imply the use case of monitoring optimizer output without side effects. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.