Check project selection, station discovery, PLC/HMI reachability, engine paths, running processes, and HMI runtime health to diagnose connection issues.
Check project selection, station discovery, PLC/HMI reachability, engine paths, running processes, and HMI runtime health. Call to orient or diagnose connection issues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since there are no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. It describes the tool as a check/status operation, implying read-only behavior without side effects. While it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or list potential side effects, the nature of the checks strongly suggests it is safe and non-mutating.
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 concise, covering the tool's functionality and usage in a single sentence. It lists the key checks without unnecessary detail, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension by an agent.
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?
Given the lack of parameters and output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to call it. It does not describe return values or prerequisites, but these are not necessary for a status-check tool. The description is complete enough for its purpose.
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 has no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adequately conveys that no input is required. No additional parameter information is needed.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking project selection, station discovery, PLC/HMI reachability, engine paths, running processes, and HMI runtime health. It also differentiates itself by indicating it is for orientation and diagnosing connection issues, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other actions.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Call to orient or diagnose connection issues.' This is a clear usage scenario, though it does not name specific alternative tools. The context of sibling tools implies that this is the go-to for status checks, which is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.