a2ui_get_stateFetch the current state of all A2UI surfaces and their components, or specify a surface ID to retrieve the state of a particular interface for debugging and synchronization.
Get the current state of all A2UI surfaces and their components.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| surface_id | No | Specific surface to get (optional, returns all if not specified) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully disclosed. The description adds the scope of the operation (all surfaces/components) and implicitly the optional single-surface filter, but does not extend much beyond what annotations and schema already provide.
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 sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the action and object. It complements the schema and annotations without repeating them.
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 low-complexity read-only tool with one optional parameter and full schema coverage, the description gives the essential information: what is retrieved and the scope. A minor gap is the lack of detail on the structure/format of the returned state, but no output schema exists and this may be unnecessary for a simple state getter.
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 single parameter surface_id is fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage), including its optionality and default behavior. The description does not need to add parameter details; the schema description provides enough semantic meaning.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current state of all A2UI surfaces and their components'), making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools that create, update, clear, or preview surfaces. The title reinforces the purpose without adding confusion.
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?
The getter nature of the tool implies its use for inspecting state, and the sibling list contains no competing read tool. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions such as using poll_events for event data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.