Inspect queue status, active operation timing, versions, and recent bridge errors to diagnose stalled or failing material builds and restore normal processing.
Return queue state, active operation timing, versions, and recent bridge errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the diagnostic categories covered, but says nothing about cost, rate limits, or whether it blocks while an operation is active.
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 with no padding, and the most concrete content (queue state) is front-loaded.
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?
An output schema exists, so return value detail is not the description's responsibility. For a zero-param read-only tool the description is essentially sufficient; only the sibling differentiation gap keeps it from a 5.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the empty schema.
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 ('Return') and enumerates the diagnostic resource contents (queue state, operation timing, versions, bridge errors). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling material_maker_status, which sounds like the nearest alternative.
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?
No when-to-use guidance at all. With material_maker_status as a close sibling, the agent has no signal for choosing diagnostics over status, or for when troubleshooting is the right context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.