Retrieve network capture status showing enabled state, hooks installed count, and options.
[advanced] Network capture status: enabled, hooksInstalled, count, options.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "net_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions it returns status fields but does not disclose whether it is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The word 'status' implies a read operation, but the description lacks explicit behavioral clarity.
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 very short (one sentence) and front-loads '[advanced]' and the key fields. However, it lacks structure and could be formatted as a list or more readable. It is concise but at the expense of clarity.
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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description lists the fields but does not explain what they represent or the expected return format. Given the lack of output schema, the description should provide more detail on the return value structure and possible values.
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?
There are no parameters, so the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the schema already handles this.
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 indicates the tool returns network capture status with specific fields (enabled, hooksInstalled, count, options). The verb is implied (get/retrieve), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like net_enable, net_disable by hinting at status retrieval. However, it could be more explicit about the action (e.g., 'Get network capture status').
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 includes '[advanced]' suggesting it's for advanced users but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like net_enable or net_disable. No context on prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.