Start a local read-only Yeti dashboard and get its address to view phases, gaps, musts and stories, RICE and flows, with automatic refresh.
Start the local, read-only Yeti dashboard and return its address (http://127.0.0.1:...). It shows phases, what is missing, musts and their stories, RICE and flows, and refreshes by itself. It runs on this computer only, while Yeti runs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses read-only behavior, local-only binding to 127.0.0.1, lifecycle tied to Yeti running, and self-refresh. It does not address repeated invocation behavior (e.g., whether calling twice starts multiple servers or reuses one), leaving a minor operational gap.
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 three compact sentences, front-loads the action and return value, and uses the remaining space for operationally relevant details (read-only, local-only, auto-refresh). Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the agent needs: the returned address format, read-only safety, local scope, lifespan, and dashboard contents. Nothing important for correct invocation is missing.
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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies; the description appropriately focuses on return value and runtime behavior instead of inventing parameters.
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 ('Start the local, read-only Yeti dashboard') and adds scope (local-only, live while Yeti runs), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling export_dashboard. An agent can identify the action without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is implied by 'local, read-only' and 'runs on this computer only, while Yeti runs', which suggests a live local inspection workflow. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over export_dashboard or when not to use it, so the agent must infer the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.