Retrieves engine version, backend type, config path, allowed roots, limits, and active case; call it first to diagnose unavailable Detection Workbench features.
Engine versions and backend (native or Docker), config location, allowed_roots, limits and the active case. Call this first if something is unavailable.
| 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 at all, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned information set and implies a non-mutating diagnostic read, but never explicitly says the call is read-only, side-effect free, or whether it requires the engine to be running. For a low-risk zero-param status check that is acceptable but not generous.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields, with the operational hint last. No filler. Minor deduction because the first sentence is a verbless fragment ('...limits and the active case'), which reads slightly clipped.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must describe return contents and it does so thoroughly for a status endpoint. Missing only the return format/shape (e.g. structured vs. text) and the failure behavior alluded to by 'if something is unavailable'.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies.
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?
Enumerates exactly what the tool reports: engine versions, backend type (native or Docker), config path, allowed_roots, limits, and the active case. That is a concrete resource scope an agent can distinguish from data-access siblings like get_case or list_cases. It stops short of a clean verb+object statement (the sentence is a bare noun list), but the substance is clear.
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?
"Call this first if something is unavailable" gives one concrete triggering condition, which is genuinely useful for a diagnostic tool. It does not cover the general case (inspecting environment/config before other operations) or state when it is unnecessary, so guidance is implied rather than complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.