Check which optional modules and Palace backends are available before configuring or launching simulations.
Which optional modules and Palace backends are available.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "palace_doctor"
}
}| 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. It does not state whether this is a read-only inspection, whether it probes the environment, what triggers the 'doctor' behavior, or what it returns — only that it concerns available modules and backends.
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 short clause with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, though it reads as a fragment rather than a complete statement of behavior.
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, no-output-schema query tool the description is minimally sufficient, but it does not clarify the 'doctor' diagnostic framing or distinguish the result from sibling status/check tools. An agent has enough to guess, not enough to be confident.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose semantics need explaining, and the description does not need to add parameter detail.
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 fragment conveys the subject matter (available optional modules and Palace backends) but lacks a verb and does not distinguish this from siblings like palace_status or palace_check. The name 'palace_doctor' implies diagnostics, which the description does not confirm or deny, leaving the actual action ambiguous.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. With 12 sibling tools that plausibly overlap (status, check, spec), the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.