navig_get_contextGet full NAVIG context—recent errors, active hosts, system state—to debug AI sessions and diagnose failures.
Get full NAVIG context including recent errors, active hosts, and system state for AI debugging.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_errors | No | Include recent error logs |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds that the result aggregates errors, hosts and state, but says nothing about cost, freshness, or response size for a potentially broad context dump.
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 that opens with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It could be considered slightly terse given the number of sibling tools it must compete with, but nothing 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the one optional parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description covers what the aggregation contains and its debugging purpose, leaving only sibling differentiation as a gap.
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% for the single boolean include_errors parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description mentions errors but does not explain the parameter's toggle behavior, matching the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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+resource and enumerates the payload ('recent errors, active hosts, and system state'), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like navig_agent_status_get or navig_space_context that also aggregate system state.
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?
'for AI debugging' implies the usage context, giving an agent a rough sense of when to reach for it. But there is no explicit when-to-use condition, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives among the many navig_* status/list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.