Identifies coding agents installed on this machine, locates each one's log files, and checks whether usage data is readable. Run it when a usage read returns empty.
Which coding agents are installed on this machine, where each one's logs live, and whether they hold readable usage. Call this first when a usage read comes back empty.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the diagnostic nature of the operation plus the three facts returned. It does not state that this is a read-only/local scan, whether it is slow, or what permissions it needs, so some behavioral context is still missing.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler, and the primary function is front-loaded ahead of the fallback-trigger guidance.
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 and no parameters, the description must describe the return payload, and it enumerates all three returned facts. An agent has enough to decide to call it and to interpret the result.
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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.
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 precisely what the tool reports: installed coding agents, their log locations, and whether readable usage exists. This is specific enough to distinguish it from get_usage/get_daily_usage, which read usage rather than enumerate agent installations.
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?
Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this first when a usage read comes back empty.' That is a clear when-to-use condition tied to the sibling read tools. It stops short of naming the siblings outright or stating when not to bother calling it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed