Isolate HDB import failures by verifying struct sizes and testing synthetic record reads, no DLL or HDB required.
HDB 読み込み経路の自己診断。DLL や HDB が無くても実行できる。
構造体サイズの検証と、合成レコードでの読み出しテストを行う。 32 ビット Python が指定されていればそちらで実行し、経路全体を確認する。 import_from_hdb が失敗するとき、まずこれを呼んで切り分けること。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| py32_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it works without the DLL or HDB file present, and it will delegate to a 32-bit Python interpreter when one is supplied. It stops short of describing what the diagnostic reports or exit/failure signaling, so it is not fully complete.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the mechanics, then the routing rule. No filler, though the 'runs under 32-bit Python' detail is slightly redundant with the parameter name.
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 read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, the 32-bit path option, and the escalation trigger from import_from_hdb. The one gap is that an agent cannot tell what a successful vs failed diagnostic returns, which matters for a troubleshooting tool.
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 burden is on the description. It does explain the behavioural effect of supplying 32-bit Python (execution switches to that interpreter to exercise the whole path), but it never states the expected value format (a path to a Python executable) or what happens with a bad value.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: a self-diagnostic of the HDB read path, with the concrete checks it performs (struct size validation, synthetic-record read test). It also names the failure scenario that selects it, which separates it from siblings like import_from_hdb and db_info.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent: 'when import_from_hdb fails, call this first to isolate the problem.' That is a concrete when-to-use condition tied to a named alternative, plus the precondition that it runs even without DLL or HDB present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.