Checks DaVinci Resolve's current status including window state, project title, active coordinates, and API connection.
Checks the status of DaVinci Resolve on this computer. Returns window state, project title, active coordinates, and internal API connection state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility. It transparently states that the tool 'checks status' and returns information, implying no side effects. It does not explicitly guarantee a non-destructive operation, but the nature of a status check makes that 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?
The description is extremely concise—two sentences—and the key information is front-loaded. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second enumerates the returned data. No unnecessary words or filler.
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 description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns. Given that there are no parameters and the output schema is provided externally, the description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly without further clarification.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The schema is fully covered (empty properties), and the description correctly omits any parameter details. This avoids ambiguity.
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's function: checking the status of DaVinci Resolve. It uses a specific verb ('checks') and resource ('DaVinci Resolve'), and lists concrete return values (window state, project title, coordinates, API connection). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which perform actions like switching pages or setting resolutions.
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 description implicitly indicates when to use the tool: whenever the current state of DaVinci Resolve is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide a 'use when' phrase, but the purpose is straightforward and self-evident given the tool's read-only nature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.