Inspect the recorder's active take, stream and recording directories, ingest streams, capture outputs, and narration binaries to verify recording setup and dependencies.
Inspect the recorder: active take, stream and recording directories, the streams that will be ingested, the capture outputs, and the binaries narration depends on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Inspect' implies a non-mutating diagnostic read, and the enumeration of what it surfaces partially substitutes for the absent output schema. However, it never explicitly states that it is read-only/side-effect free or describes any caveats about when the reported state may be stale.
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 then lists what is inspected. It is efficient, though the trailing enumeration of five items is dense and mixes distinct output categories rather than prioritizing them.
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, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the categories of information returned, so an agent knows what to expect. It falls short only on when-to-use and on explicit confirmation of side-effect-free behavior.
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 the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the schema correctly declares an empty object with additionalProperties false.
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 gives a specific verb ('Inspect') and enumerates the resources returned: active take, stream/recording directories, ingest streams, capture outputs, and narration binaries. It is clear what the tool does, though the name 'seshat_info' is opaque and the description does not distinguish this inspection tool from the sibling recording_status, whose scope likely overlaps.
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 explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as recording_status or recording_timeline. Usage is only implied by the word 'Inspect', and no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.