Check whether active tweens or screen transitions remain, returning the current idle state without blocking. Use it to confirm the game is idle before input or state changes.
Check if the system is idle (no active tweens, no screen transitions). Returns current state without blocking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 does disclose the critical trait that the call is non-blocking and returns current state, and defines what 'idle' means, but it never specifies the return shape (boolean vs. state object) or whether repeated polling is expected.
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 tight sentences with zero waste. The purpose and its defining criteria come first, and the non-blocking clarification follows where it is most needed to counter the tool name.
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 simple no-arg read tool this is nearly complete: purpose, idle criteria, and non-blocking semantics are all covered. The one gap is the unspecified return format, which matters more here because there is no output schema to fall back on.
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 to document and the baseline is 4. No parameter-level guidance is required or missing.
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 (Check) plus resource (system idle state) and defines the exact criteria for 'idle' (no active tweens, no screen transitions). This scoping lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_tween_state and get_screen_state, which report only one component of idleness.
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 corrects the misleading name by clarifying the call does not block, which is useful context, but it never states when to use this versus polling get_tween_state/get_screen_state or any alternative. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.