Retrieves current Dragon's Dogma 2 process, REFramework revision, bridge connection state, and player position when a save is loaded, enabling live status checks.
Game process, REFramework revision, bridge state, and the player's position if a save is loaded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 must carry behavioral weight. It usefully discloses a conditional: player position is only reported 'if a save is loaded', which tells the agent results vary by game state. It does not confirm the call is side-effect free or whether it is safe to poll repeatedly.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the most important content (game process, bridge state) comes first. It loses a point only because the fragment form makes the payload list read as description rather than a clear statement of what the call returns.
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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and it correctly notes the save-loaded precondition. However, for a diagnostic entry point among 24 siblings it still lacks the guidance an agent needs on when to reach for it and whether it is safe to call at any time.
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 semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly adds no spurious parameter discussion.
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?
The description enumerates exactly what the tool reports: game process state, REFramework revision, bridge state, and player position. That is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like dd2_log or dd2_pause_state, but it is written as a noun-phrase fragment with no verb (e.g., 'Returns...'), so the action is inferred rather than stated.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as dd2_log, dd2_pause_state, or dd2_install_bridge, and no mention of whether it should be used as a first diagnostic step. The only implicit cue is that it is a status read, which the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.