Check whether a CodeTour tour is active, if a browser viewer is connected, audio state, steps shown, and the viewer URL to diagnose timeouts or a closed viewer window.
Diagnostics: whether a tour is active, whether a browser viewer is connected, audio state, steps shown, and the viewer URL. Use this if a call timed out or you suspect the viewer window was closed.
| 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 does well: 'Diagnostics' signals a read-only nature, and it enumerates the state it reports (active, connected, audio, steps, URL). It does not explicitly state it has no side effects, but the diagnostic framing implies non-mutation, which is sufficient for a 0-parameter status tool.
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 sentences with zero filler. The diagnostic purpose and output fields are front-loaded, followed by a single targeted usage condition. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes it scannable for an agent.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns, and it does: active state, browser connection, audio state, steps shown, and viewer URL. For a 0-parameter diagnostics tool, this covers the essential information an agent needs. It could mention that the viewer URL is only present when connected, but this is a minor omission.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments. The description instead clarifies what the tool returns (the diagnostic fields), which is the relevant semantic content. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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 opens with 'Diagnostics:' and specifies exactly what is reported: tour active state, browser viewer connection, audio state, steps shown, and viewer URL. This clearly distinguishes it from the action-oriented siblings (start_tour, show_step, end_tour), making its purpose unmistakable.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this if a call timed out or you suspect the viewer window was closed.' This is concrete and actionable. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the diagnostic framing makes it obvious this is the status-check tool among action tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.