Access runtime diagnostics from the in-memory buffer without exposing captured content. Monitor buffer health and performance while preserving privacy of stored outputs.
Returns opt-in runtime metadata without exposing captured content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full disclosure burden. It adds useful context by stating the tool is opt-in and avoids exposing captured content, implying a read-only diagnostic operation. However, it does not describe any side effects, permissions, or conditions under which metadata is available.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and followed by an important boundary statement. There is no filler, and every phrase earns its place.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema, and a fairly simple diagnostic purpose, the description is mostly complete. It lacks guidance on when or why an agent should invoke it, but the output schema covers return values and the boundary statement clarifies what it does not expose.
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 the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information missing. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.
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 clearly states the tool returns runtime metadata and explicitly distinguishes it from exposing captured content, which separates it from sibling capture tools. The resource 'runtime metadata' is somewhat vague, but combined with the tool name it is understandable.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of siblings. The phrase 'opt-in runtime metadata' hints at a prerequisite condition but does not explain how or when to opt in, and no alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.