Checks Chrome extension connectivity, an open grok.com/imagine tab, and login status to verify the browser bridge is ready for image or video generation.
Bridge health: is the Chrome extension connected, is a grok.com/imagine tab open, is the user logged in.
| 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 burden; it does disclose what is inspected (extension, tab, auth state), implying a read-only probe, but says nothing about cost, latency, or whether it can have side effects such as opening a tab.
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 naming the subject and then the three checks; 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?
With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does by listing the three status questions. What's missing is the return shape (booleans vs. messages) and any recommended follow-up on failure.
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 and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.
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 resource (bridge health) and enumerates the concrete conditions it checks: Chrome extension connection, grok.com/imagine tab, and login state. This distinguishes it from generation/settings siblings, though it never explicitly frames itself as a diagnostic/preflight check.
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 a preflight diagnostic to run before grok_generate_image or grok_batch, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is stated, nor is any sibling named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.