Checks whether Waveform is currently running and returns its process ID and executable path.
Is Waveform currently running? Returns pid + exe path if so.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "waveform_status"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavioral trait: the tool only reports current running status and returns pid and exe path when running. It does not state the exact not-running return value, but the 'if so' qualifier is reasonably clear.
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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then specifies the return payload. No wasted words.
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 status check with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the condition and the returned fields. The only small gap is the exact not-running return value, but this does not seriously impede correct 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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning about what the tool produces, which is all that is needed here.
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 status-check operation ('Is Waveform currently running?') with a clear resource (Waveform process) and precise output (pid + exe path). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like waveform_launch, waveform_quit, and waveform_focus.
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 phrasing implies a pre-flight check before launching/quitting Waveform, but it never explicitly says when to use it or names alternatives. For a simple status tool this is adequate but leaves the decision to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.