Read the current autopilot state to inspect approved and active hashes, eligible points, per-point on/off/blocked status, and the gates each point waits for.
Autopilot state (read-only). Returns the approved and current [autopilot] hashes, the eligible points, and per point its status (on|off|blocked(reason)) and the gate it waits for.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 must carry the whole behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is read-only and describes the return semantics including the 'on|off|blocked(reason)' status domain and the gate each point waits for. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or whether the hashes can change concurrently, so the disclosure is partial rather than complete.
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 compact sentences with zero filler. The read-only qualifier is front-loaded and the return contents follow immediately, so the reader gets the important fact first.
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?
The output schema means return values need not be spelled out, and the description covers them anyway. However, for a call with a required, completely undocumented 'payload' object, the definition does not give an agent enough to invoke it correctly, which is a material gap for an otherwise simple status tool.
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?
There is one required parameter, 'payload', declared as a free-form object with additionalProperties true and 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions what belongs in that payload, so the agent has no way to know whether it can pass an empty object or must supply fields. The schema and description together leave the parameter undefined.
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 names a specific resource ('autopilot state') and enumerates what the response contains: approved and current hashes, eligible points, per-point status, and the gate being awaited. That is far beyond a tautology. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the parallel do_autopilot_status sibling, which keeps it from a 5.
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 only usage signal is the parenthetical '(read-only)' plus the word 'status', which implies an inspection call. There is no statement of when to call this versus do_autopilot_status or the plan-run siblings, and no preconditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.