Check if your local Vortex bridge is running, which profile is active, and which account is signed in. Use this to verify your setup before managing mods.
Check the running local Vortex bridge, active profile, and signed-in account.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what is actually inspected (bridge liveness, active profile, signed-in account) and implicitly the local-bridge dependency; it stops short of describing failure behavior when the bridge is not running.
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 with no filler; the resources checked are enumerated compactly and nothing is redundant with the name.
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 probe with full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough for correct invocation. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the return shape (fields, error states when the bridge is down) is only sketched by the three enumerated items.
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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly implies the call is argument-free.
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 verb ('Check') and three concrete resources: the local Vortex bridge, the active profile, and the signed-in account. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like vortex_profiles or nexus_account, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
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 — a status probe that an agent would naturally call before or after other Vortex operations, or to diagnose a connection. There is no statement of when to prefer it, no mention of alternatives, and no preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.