Query live HMR events, compiler errors, warnings, rebuild latency, and dev server status for Vite, Next.js, Webpack, and Nuxt.
Query live HMR dev server events, compiler errors, warnings, rebuild latency, and dev server status for Vite, Next.js, Webpack, and Nuxt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of HMR events to return | |
| status | No | Filter HMR records by status or type | all |
| includeRaw | No | Whether to include raw websocket payloads |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.17.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it queries HMR data but does not state that this is a non-mutating read, whether records are buffered/retained across sessions, how pagination or truncation behaves, or how the limit interacts with the event history. For a zero-annotation tool this is a substantial 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and a scannable enumeration of returned data. The framework list is slightly verbose but justifies itself by scoping which dev servers are supported.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by enumerating the returned fields. However, it omits the clearing counterpart (vibeside_hmr_clear), retention/buffering semantics, and any safety profile, leaving an agent with gaps for a telemetry 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 100%, so limit, status, and includeRaw are already fully documented in the schema. The description's enumeration of compiler errors, warnings, rebuild latency, and status loosely corresponds to the status filter values but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3.
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 states a specific verb (Query) and resource (HMR dev server events), and enumerates the concrete data types returned: compiler errors, warnings, rebuild latency, and server status, plus supported frameworks. It does not name the obvious sibling vibeside_hmr_clear as the alternative for clearing records, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the verb.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. a connected browser/dev server must exist), and no mention of vibeside_hmr_clear as the counterpart for clearing this data. The word 'live' hints the dev server must be running, but that is inference rather than guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.