Inspect this process's local message queue, receiver, and notification state to verify inbox health and wake-up status without returning network text.
Show this process's local queue, receiver, and notification state.
host_wake=unverified means that even listening does not prove model wake-up. A
separate post-idle test is required. No network text is returned.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is local-only ('this process's local queue') and returns no network text, and it warns that host_wake=unverified does not prove model wake-up. However, it omits whether the tool is read-only, what the response shape looks like, and any permission or side-effect information.
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 brief and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, followed by two short caveats. Every sentence adds some value, though the host_wake note is dense and could be clearer without requiring knowledge of an unexplained field.
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?
Without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain more about what the returned state contains and how to interpret it. It names the state categories and one host_wake caveat, but leaves the agent guessing about the overall response structure and read-only nature.
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 parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because there are no arguments to misinterpret.
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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('this process's local queue, receiver, and notification state'), making the diagnostic purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like a4a_delivery_status or a4a_inbox_next, but the scope is concrete enough for an agent to understand what it does.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as a4a_delivery_status or a4a_inbox_next. The note about host_wake interpretation is an output caveat, not a usage directive, so the agent must infer when this status check is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.