Retrieve the active document, exported file, last job, and job history from the current GUI session to monitor session state.
Get the stateful GUI session target: current document, current exported file, last job, and history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0-hardened.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool retrieves information (a read operation) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, performance implications, or prerequisites. The description is accurate but minimal.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is concise but could be slightly expanded to clarify what 'history' entails. Still, it earns its place without waste.
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 description lists what the tool returns but does not provide details on the return format or structure, and there is no output schema. For a tool that aggregates multiple state pieces, more completeness would be beneficial. Among sibling tools, it is a query tool, but the description leaves some ambiguity.
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 input schema has no parameters (empty properties), and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). With no parameters, the description does not need to add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving the stateful GUI session target, listing specific elements (current document, exported file, last job, history). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform actions on the GUI state.
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 implies using the tool to query GUI state, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like ms_gui_apply_current or ms_gui_edit_current. There are no usage conditions or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.