Retrieve the last browser-selected instance as a naja-scope path, or null, then use it with module-card, source, or hierarchy tools to inspect design structure.
Return the last browser-selected instance as a naja-scope path, or null. Use the returned path with module-card, source, or hierarchy tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: the value reflects the *last* selection (state-dependent) and may be null, which an agent must handle. It stops short of explaining what a naja-scope path is.
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 short sentences with zero filler; the return contract is front-loaded and the follow-up routing sentence immediately adds actionable value. Every clause 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-param getter with no output schema, the description fully covers the return contract (path or null) and next steps. The only omission is any explanation of the naja-scope path format, which an unfamiliar agent would have to infer from the referenced consumer tools.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter guidance is needed or missing.
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 ('Return the last browser-selected instance'), specifies the output format ('as a naja-scope path, or null'), and distinguishes itself from siblings that consume its output. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening anything else.
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?
Explicitly directs the agent to feed the result into module-card, source, or hierarchy tools, which is a concrete usage path. It doesn't state when the tool should NOT be called or note that it depends on prior browser interaction, but no true alternative exists among siblings, so the guidance is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.