Check bridge and connection state to diagnose issues by reporting engine version, protocol, enabled features, capability mode, managed instance, and token presence before controlling DOSBox.
Bridge and connection state: engine version, effective protocol, enabled features, capability mode, managed instance, token presence (never the value).
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, and the description adds genuinely useful non-obvious context: that the token is reported only as presence and never as a value. It also signals the response is an enumeration of state fields rather than an action, reinforcing the no-side-effect profile.
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 with a compact field list. Every clause carries information, and the security caveat is placed prominently without padding.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it largely does by enumerating engine version, protocol, features, capability mode, managed instance, and token presence. It does not hint at the format of items like capability mode or protocol, which is a minor residual gap.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4; the description correctly spends no words on arguments.
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?
Names the resource (bridge and connection state) and enumerates the specific fields surfaced, which naturally separates it from the narrower bridge_version and session_info siblings. There is no explicit sibling callout, but the scope is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-side diagnostic for the bridge, but the description never says when to prefer it over bridge_version, bridge_logs, or session_info, nor any preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.