Diagnose Capture One connectivity by checking app status, Apple Events, version, open document, and write tiers before addressing timeouts.
Health and context for Capture One: whether it is running, whether Apple Events are actually getting through, the reported app version, the open document, and which write tiers are enabled. Call this first when anything else times out.
| 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?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying what signals the status reports, particularly 'whether Apple Events are actually getting through' and which write tiers are enabled.
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: the first front-loads the scope with a colon-delimited list of contents, and the second gives the key usage rule. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.
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 status tool, the description covers what the tool reports and when to call it. The missing output schema does not create a gap because the described status fields are sufficient for an agent to interpret the result.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. This matches the 0-parameter baseline of 4.
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 names a specific diagnostic resource and enumerates concrete contents: running state, Apple Events delivery, app version, open document, and write tiers. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools, which focus on documents, variants, recipes, and selection actions.
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 instruction 'Call this first when anything else times out' provides an explicit, actionable trigger for using this tool. It does not name a specific alternative or state when not to use it, but it supplies clear context for the primary diagnostic scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.