Inspect a live programmable to retrieve current parameter values, slots, dynamic refs, named elements, interactives, and settings for debugging or scene analysis.
Deep inspection of a live programmable: current parameter values, slots, dynamic refs, named elements, interactives, and settings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| programmable | Yes | Programmable name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the target must be 'live' (a running/connected programmable) and enumerates the returned data, but it says nothing about read-only behavior, what happens if the programmable does not exist, or error handling.
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 that names the action first and the inspected content after; the colon-separated list is dense but every item is informative and there is no filler.
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's enumeration of retrieved fields carries the return-value load and does it well. It is slightly incomplete in not clarifying whether the programmable must be listed as active first (list_active_programmables) or what a failed lookup returns.
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?
Only one parameter ('programmable'), and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage as the 'Programmable name'. The description adds no format, naming, or qualification details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('programmable'), then enumerates exactly what is retrieved: parameter values, slots, dynamic refs, named elements, interactives, settings. This distinguishes it from the point-list siblings (list_slots, get_parameters, list_interactives), though that contrast is implied rather than named.
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 phrase 'deep inspection of a live programmable' implies the tool is for getting a comprehensive snapshot of a running programmable, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative (e.g. get_parameters or list_slots for narrow reads) is mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.