Returns basic runtime identity and status, using SHA-256 conditional reads and optional short TTL caching to suppress unchanged payloads and skip redundant reads.
Return basic runtime identity. Supports SHA-256 conditional reads so unchanged payloads can be suppressed, and optional short TTL reuse can skip safe read execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| known_digest | No | ||
| cache_max_age_ms | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: SHA-256 conditional reads can suppress unchanged payloads and short TTL reuse can skip safe read execution. That is useful caching/execution context, but it omits permissions, whether the read has side effects, and what the payload actually contains.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded before the caching mechanics. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is jargon-dense and would benefit from slightly plainer framing.
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 and no annotations mean the description should explain return content and safety profile; it covers caching behavior but not what 'runtime identity' contains or whether the call is purely safe. Adequate but with clear gaps for a two-parameter 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so conceptually: 'SHA-256 conditional reads' maps to the known_digest parameter and 'short TTL reuse' maps to cache_max_age_ms. But it never names the parameters or specifies formats/bounds, so the mapping stays implicit.
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+resource combination ('Return basic runtime identity') that tells the agent this is a read of runtime metadata. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling plugin_echo, and 'basic runtime identity' remains somewhat abstract about what is actually returned.
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 explains mechanisms (conditional reads, TTL reuse) but never states when to call this tool versus plugin_echo or any other alternative. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.