Inspect Live’s object model at a chosen path to see properties, writability, and callable functions with Live docs.
List the properties (with whether each is writable) and functions available at path, with Live's docs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | live_set |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral content by specifying that the result includes writability flags and Live's documentation, but it omits path validity handling, output shape, or any caveats about querying invalid paths.
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 that conveys the core action, the target, and the notable extras. There is no filler or repetition.
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 an introspection tool with no output schema, the description is moderately complete because it sketches what is returned. However, the missing path syntax and failure behavior create meaningful gaps for an agent that needs to call it correctly without a schema description.
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?
There is one optional string parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions `path` without explaining syntax (e.g., 'live_set tracks 0'), valid values, or what the default 'live_set' represents, leaving the parameter underspecified.
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 (List) and resource (properties and functions available at `path`) with the added detail that writability and Live's docs are included. This clearly distinguishes it from generic value getters, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like lom_get or lom_call for contrast.
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?
No guidance about when to use this tool versus lom_get, lom_call, or others. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or the consequences of choosing this introspection call over retrieving a value directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.