Inspect the current visual QA setup: base URL, reference directory, route mappings, discovered reference screenshots, and available auth profiles. Start here to verify configuration before running comparisons.
Show the effective configuration (base URL, reference dir, route mapping), the reference screenshots found and the available auth profiles. Start here.
| 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'shows' configuration and profiles, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, require authentication, or describe response format. The lack of annotation coverage means a 3 is appropriate; the description provides basic transparency but not rich detail.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and content are front-loaded, and the final 'Start here' adds a clear directive without repetition. It is efficient and structured effectively.
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?
For a zero-parameter informational tool, the description is largely complete. It lists all the key pieces of information the tool provides. It does not explicitly state the output format or that it is read-only, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema. The description sufficiently equips an agent to call it correctly.
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 has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter behavior. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs. No additional parameter semantics are needed.
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 states the tool's function with a specific verb 'Show' and a resource: effective configuration, listing specific components (base URL, reference dir, route mapping, screenshots, auth profiles). It also adds the phrase 'Start here,' which establishes its role as an entry point, distinguishing it from action-oriented siblings like run_qa or capture.
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 the explicit guidance 'Start here,' indicating this tool should be used first to understand the current setup. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the 'Start here' instruction effectively signals when to use it, and the sibling list contains no other config-display tool, so usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.