Check a Windows 98 VM's connection and lease state without acquiring its lease. Use this to verify guest connectivity or diagnose lease issues before taking further action.
Inspect guest connection and lease state without acquiring the VM lease.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vm_name | Yes | Unique VM name configured in WIN98CTL.INI. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Input schema / properties / vm_nameAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Unique VM name configured in WIN98CTL.INI.",
+ "pattern": "^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9._-]{0,63}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "vm_name"
+]v0.0.0-developmentDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee: the call does not acquire the VM lease. It also clarifies what state is inspected (guest connection and lease), which is useful beyond the annotations.
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 sentence, no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (inspection without lease acquisition) is front-loaded. Every word adds meaning.
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 one-parameter read-only inspection tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is complete enough to select and invoke correctly. It specifies what is inspected and the key side-effect constraint; an output schema is not required for safe invocation.
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 schema covers the single vm_name parameter 100%, including its pattern and meaning in WIN98CTL.INI. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies; it does not need to compensate for coverage gaps.
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 uses specific verb 'Inspect' with a clear resource: guest connection and lease state. The phrase 'without acquiring the VM lease' separates it from lease/lock operations and from sibling qemu_vm_status, which would target QEMU VM state rather than guest connection/lease state.
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?
'Inspect ... without acquiring the VM lease' provides clear context for when to call this tool: a read-only status check that should not lock the VM. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as vm_lock, so it falls short of fully explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.