tuanjie_bridge_statusReads the active Codely configuration and returns the current adapter connection state, so you can verify connectivity without triggering a reconnect.
Reads the active .com-unity-codely.json and reports the adapter connection state without reconnecting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by naming the exact config file involved and explicitly promising no reconnection side effects.
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 clean sentence that front-loads the action ('Reads'), then the resource, then the outcome, and finally the key side-effect guarantee. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name or annotations.
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 a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with strong annotations, the description is largely complete. The main minor gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not outline what the reported connection states look like, but this is not essential for invoking the tool correctly.
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 are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description clarifies that the tool operates on the active config file automatically, which effectively explains why no parameters are 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?
Description states a specific verb ('Reads'), a specific resource (the active .com-unity-codely.json), and a clear outcome ('reports the adapter connection state'). It also distinguishes itself from connection-establishing operations by adding 'without reconnecting'.
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 phrase 'without reconnecting' implies this is the safe, read-only choice when only status is needed, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.