Report human-style input mode status and exact limits so callers understand what this session can see and control; chat messages, page contents, and other input-tool calls remain invisible.
Report human mode and truthful limits. This service cannot see chat messages, page contents, or calls to other input tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the explicit disclosure of blind spots: no chat messages, page contents, or other input tool calls. That is genuine behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotation block, though return shape and format remain unstated.
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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The phrasing "truthful limits" is slightly idiosyncratic but costs little space.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the report actually returns (which modes exist, what a 'limit' looks like). It names the limitations but not the returned structure, leaving a gap an agent must discover by calling it.
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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading parameter language is present.
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?
"Report human mode and truthful limits" gives a verb (report) and a subject (mode/limits), but the subject is abstract and the description never separates this tool from close siblings like human_status or human_mode. The second sentence clarifies scope rather than the tool's own output, so the agent still has to infer what a 'capabilities report' contains.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus human_status, human_mode, or human_observe. The visibility disclaimer implies a use case (asking what the service can perceive) but does so indirectly, and no exclusions or alternatives are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.