Check the hardware, machine type, and current state of a Google Colab session, or inspect the only active session, to verify runtime status before running jobs.
Show hardware, machine shape and state of a session (or the only active one).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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. 'Show' implies a non-mutating read, and the default-to-active-session behavior is disclosed, but there is no mention of permissions, what happens when no session exists, or any error/rate-limit behavior.
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 filler; the core resource list comes first and the default behavior second. It borders on under-specification rather than being padded, but as written it is tight and readable.
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 values need not be explained, and the description covers what is shown. For a tool in a namespace crowded with similar status/info tools, the absence of any positioning against colab_runtime_info, colab_sessions, or colab_usage leaves a real gap.
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 schema documents the single 'session' parameter only structurally (string|null, default null, 0% description coverage). The description partially compensates by explaining that omitting it targets 'the only active one', but it adds no format, naming, or identifier conventions for the session value.
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 ('Show') and concrete resources (hardware, machine shape, state of a session), so an agent knows this is a status/read tool rather than an action tool. It does not name or differentiate itself from close siblings such as colab_runtime_info, colab_sessions, or colab_usage, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 parenthetical '(or the only active one)' clarifies the fallback when the session argument is omitted, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over colab_runtime_info, colab_sessions, or colab_usage; usage must be inferred from the wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.