herdr_getRetrieve a terminal's live or finished facts—argv, working directory, state, status, exit code, labels, and foreground process—by terminal ID or name.
One terminal's facts, live or finished: argv, cwd, state, status, exit code, labels, foreground process.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| terminal | Yes | The terminal: `t7`, a name, or `machine/t7`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does useful work by disclosing the returned field set and that finished terminals are also retrievable, but it says nothing about what happens when the identifier is unknown (error vs. null), whether data is cached, or any access constraints. Adequate but with clear gaps for a no-annotation tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every clause enumerates a concrete returned field, so nothing is wasted.
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 enumeration of return fields is exactly the compensating detail an agent needs, and it is present. The remaining gap is failure behavior for a missing or invalid terminal id, which matters for a lookup tool but is a modest omission given the schema fully documents the sole input.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting the accepted forms (`t7`, a name, `machine/t7`). The description adds nothing about the identifier format or resolution rules, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ("Get a terminal") and enumerates exactly what comes back: argv, cwd, state, status, exit code, labels, foreground process. It implicitly contrasts with herdr_list by scoping to "One terminal," but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is suggestive rather than explicit.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named, even though herdr_list is the obvious sibling for enumerating terminals. "live or finished" hints that it works for terminated terminals too, but the agent must infer that retrieval-by-identifier is the intended call pattern.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.