Check installed runtimes, their accounts, login state, last usage, and cooldowns to plan subagent delegation without model calls.
Installed runtimes, their accounts, login state, last known usage and cooldowns. Makes no model calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| runtime | No |
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 burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: 'Makes no model calls' tells the agent the call is side-effect-free and incurs no model cost. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether it reflects live or cached state, freshness, or return shape.
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 tight clauses, no filler, and the content list is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in the text 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?
No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must do more than enumerate fields. It omits how the 'runtime' filter behaves and what the response looks like for an agent that must parse it, leaving the definition underspecified for even a simple 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is responsible for explaining the single 'runtime' parameter, yet it never mentions it. The enum values (claude, codex, antigravity) are visible in the schema, but whether 'runtime' filters the result and what happens when it is omitted is unexplained.
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 enumerates the data the tool exposes (runtimes, accounts, login state, usage, cooldowns) but uses a bare noun phrase with no verb, so it never explicitly says it retrieves/lists this state. The resource ('accounts' of runtimes) is inferable from the name and content list, and it is distinguishable from the subagent_* action siblings, but the operation itself is left implicit.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus the sibling tools (subagent_status, subagent_list, etc.), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only hint is 'Makes no model calls', which implies a cheap inspection call but does not route the agent explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.