Inspect a single Java heap dump object to view its class, fields, static fields, inbound/outbound references, and GC root status. Use an object ID to diagnose memory retention and leak paths.
Inspect a single object (class, fields, statics, in/out refs, GC root). Required: object id. / 检查单个对象（类、字段、静态字段、入/出引用、GC Root）。必须传 object id。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| report_id | 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 carries the full behavioral burden. 'Inspect' implies a read operation and the listed aspects clarify what kind of information is returned, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, prerequisites, or whether any side effects exist.
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 front-loaded and extremely compact, with the core action and inspected categories stated first and the required object id called out immediately. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but does not introduce unnecessary noise.
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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the description does list inspected object aspects. However, for a tool with two required parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no annotations, omitting the required 'report_id' parameter is a significant completeness gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It clarifies that 'id' is an object id, but it omits 'report_id', which is required by the schema, leaving one of two required parameters undocumented in the description.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Inspect', and resource, 'a single object', then enumerates the inspected aspects: class, fields, statics, in/out refs, and GC root. This distinguishes it from aggregate siblings like mat_histogram or mat_dominator, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
It implies the tool is for inspecting one object when an object id is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings such as mat_path2gc, mat_histogram, or mat_dominator. There are no stated exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.