Retrieves a timer's observed anchor and uncertain estimate separately, letting you inspect timing without cancelling pending input.
Return the observed timer anchor and an uncertain estimate separately. Querying never cancels input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timer_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'never cancels input' is largely reinforcement, though it usefully targets the specific side effect an agent might fear. It does explain the return shape at a high level (anchor vs. estimate reported separately), but leaves unexplained why idempotentHint=false for a read, what makes the estimate 'uncertain', or what happens for an unknown timer_id.
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 tightly packed sentences with no filler, and the return-content statement is front-loaded before the side-effect clarification. Minor loss: 'an uncertain estimate' is compressed to the point of ambiguity about units or volatility.
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 the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it only sketches them qualitatively (anchor, uncertain estimate). Combined with an undocumented required parameter and no error behavior for invalid or unknown timer ids, it is adequate but leaves real gaps for a 1-param read 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 parameter, timer_id, and schema description coverage is 0% — the schema gives only length bounds. The description never mentions timer_id, its expected format, or where an agent obtains one (presumably from timer_attach or timer_prepare), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 verb and resource: it returns the observed timer anchor plus a separate uncertain estimate, which is more informative than the bare name 'timer_status'. However, it never contrasts itself with sibling timer tools such as timer_calibrate, timer_prepare, or reading_status, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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?
'Querying never cancels input' implies this is a safe, repeatable inspection call and hints that polling is acceptable, but it never says when to use this rather than timer_calibrate or timer_invalidate, nor any prerequisite such as a timer having been attached or prepared first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.