muse_statusChecks if the Muse browser is running, if you are logged in to muse.ai, and if the chat composer is ready, so you can verify chat readiness before prompting.
Report whether the Muse browser is running, whether you are logged in to muse.ai, and whether the chat composer is ready.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only, side-effect-free probe by saying 'Report whether,' which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that nothing is mutated, whether the check is cached, or how a false result should be handled.
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 tightly-written sentence with the three checks parallel and front-loaded. Every clause earns its place and nothing is wasted.
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, the description usefully enumerates the three boolean results an agent can expect, which is the key missing piece for a status tool. It stops short of explaining how to act on negative results, but the core is complete.
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 no parameter documentation burden; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly reflects that no input is needed.
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 action (report) and enumerates the exact three conditions checked: browser running, login state, and chat composer readiness. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like muse_login or muse_open_chat, which act rather than report.
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 implied – an agent would call this to check state before invoking muse_chat or muse_login – but the description never states when to use it or how it relates to alternatives such as muse_login. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.