Inspect the MCP server's configuration and process-session lifecycle to verify connectivity and state without requiring a connected device.
Inspect server configuration and process-session lifecycle without touching a device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| elapsed_ms | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — it operates without a device connection — but says nothing about server-connection prerequisites, failure modes, or whether the data is live versus cached.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. The one weak spot is that 'process-session lifecycle' is abstract phrasing that costs words without adding much precision.
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?
With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and annotations cover safety. However, it does not state whether a server/agent connection is required for the call to succeed, which is the main operational question an agent has before invoking it.
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 4 baseline applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It includes no stray parameter claims, which is correct.
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 (Inspect) and two resources (server configuration, process-session lifecycle), and the clause 'without touching a device' implicitly distinguishes it from the device_*, frida_*, and ui_* siblings that require an attached target. The phrase 'process-session lifecycle' is somewhat jargon-heavy, but an agent can still tell it is a server-side introspection tool rather than a device tool.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'without touching a device' suggests it is the right call when no device/session is attached, but no sibling is named and no explicit when-not or prerequisite (e.g., whether a server connection must already exist) is given. The agent must infer the selection rule against job_status, device_info, and similar siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.