Connects an AI agent to a running DOSBox instance by reading its token, probing the API, and negotiating the protocol version; reports a precise reason if it cannot.
Explicitly attach to the running dosbox instance: reads the token, probes the API, negotiates the protocol version. Reports a precise reason when it cannot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=false signals a state-changing operation, and the description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that annotation: it reads a token, probes the API, negotiates a protocol version, and returns a precise failure reason. This tells the agent the call has a multi-step side effect and produces diagnostic error output. It stops short of describing idempotency or auth/permission requirements.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with the action verb first, followed by a compact clause on failure reporting. No filler or restated boilerplate.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description covers the essential contract: what is attached to, the handshake steps, and that failures are reported with a reason. It omits what a successful return looks like (e.g., negotiated version or session handle), a minor gap for a connect tool.
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 for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The absence of parameters also matches the 'attach to whatever instance is running' framing.
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 ('attach'/'connect') and resource ('the running dosbox instance'), and the phrase 'running' implicitly separates it from bridge_start/bridge_stop. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling boundary, but an agent can still tell this negotiates a connection rather than launching a bridge.
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?
'Attach to the running dosbox instance' implies the precondition that the instance is already running, which is useful context. However, it never states when to call this versus bridge_start, bridge_status, or bridge_disconnect, nor what to do if it fails, leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.