Checks QEMU host readiness, configured binary, VM root, accelerator policy, and guest-to-host TCP route to identify and fix setup or connection problems before managing virtual machines.
Check the local QEMU host, configured binary, managed VM root, accelerator policy, and stable guest-to-host TCP route.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | No | ||
| qemu_binary | No | ||
| acceleration | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Check' wording aligns with those. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the exact dimensions checked, especially the network connectivity check via 'stable guest-to-host TCP route,' which goes beyond the generic annotation profile.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and lists the checked items in a clear, scannable sequence. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff 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 a read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is checked but does not explain what the tool returns, how results are presented, or how parameters alter the diagnostic scope. The annotations cover safety, and all parameters are optional, so an agent could invoke it correctly, but return-value expectations remain unspecified.
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%, and the description does not mention any of the three optional parameters (profile, qemu_binary, acceleration) or how they influence the check. Since there are no parameter descriptions in the schema, this is a significant gap the description needed to fill but did not.
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 opens with a clear verb, 'Check,' and names a distinct resource: the local QEMU host. It also enumerates specific diagnostic areas — configured binary, managed VM root, accelerator policy, and guest-to-host TCP route — which separates it from sibling status and listing tools.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qemu_vm_status, system_info, or agent_diagnostics. It implies a diagnostic/health-check purpose from the verb 'Check' and the title, but it does not state when this tool is preferable or when another tool should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.