stage_stateReports a stage's URL, viewport, visibility, last capture time, capture staleness, and runtime error counts so you can assess current state.
Report URL, viewport, hidden flag, last capture time, capture staleness, and runtime error counts for a stage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stage_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Report' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the description usefully enumerates the returned state fields, but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether any state is modified.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every listed field contributes useful information about what the tool reports.
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?
The tool is simple, and the description adequately enumerates the returned fields in the absence of an output schema. However, it leaves the required stage_id parameter undocumented and provides no usage context, which are meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the required stage_id parameter, its format, or how to obtain one. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and clearly states the resource: state information for a stage, including URL, viewport, capture staleness, and error counts. It is distinguishable from mutation siblings like stage_close or stage_open, though it does not explicitly compare itself to stage_focus or capture.
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 implies that this is a status-inspection tool by listing the reported fields, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as stage_focus, capture, or scenario_run. There are no stated preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.