Inspect a terminal channel's metadata and capabilities by providing its channel_id. Use observe to establish a bounded snapshot observation cursor.
Inspect mechanical metadata and capabilities for one terminal channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| observe | No | Establish a bounded snapshot observation cursor. | |
| channel_id | Yes | Opaque channel identifier returned by list_channels. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / observeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Establish a bounded snapshot observation cursor.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the notion of inspecting 'mechanical metadata and capabilities' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as what fields are returned or how the snapshot observe parameter affects the operation. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and resource immediately, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
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?
Given the simple two-parameter schema and strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance on how this relates to siblings such as read_channel, but the description plus schema covers the core invocation context well.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The channel_id description adds useful provenance ('returned by list_channels'), and observe gains meaning through 'bounded snapshot observation cursor.' However, the main tool description does not add parameter detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 the specific verb 'Inspect' and clearly identifies the resource: 'mechanical metadata and capabilities for one terminal channel.' It differentiates from siblings by indicating this is a per-channel inspection tool, distinguishing it from list_channels and read_channel. The phrasing implies metadata/capabilities rather than content, which helps an agent select it correctly.
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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_channel, list_channels, or wait_channel_event. The description implies a per-channel inspection use case but does not state exclusions or conditions, so the agent is left to infer the right context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.