Inspect Local Commander's execution scheduler limits, active jobs, queue, and resource locks to diagnose backlog, contention, or blocked tasks before they stall your workflow.
Inspect Local Commander execution scheduler limits, active work, queue and resource locks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | No | Optional existing runtime binding for monitor attribution; no extra handshake. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what state is actually inspected (limits, active work, queue, locks), which matters because there is no output schema to reveal the return shape. It stops short of noting auth requirements or lock semantics.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource comes first and the inspected facets follow. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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 output schema, the description usefully enumerates the categories of state returned, and the sole parameter is optional and documented in the schema. It omits whether calling it requires specific permissions or whether scheduler state is snapshotted at call time, which keeps it from a 5.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'agent' parameter (a nested runtime binding object) is fully documented in the schema, including that it is optional and only used for monitor attribution. The description adds nothing about this parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Inspect') and a clearly scoped resource ('Local Commander execution scheduler'), then enumerates the facets exposed: limits, active work, queue, resource locks. That is enough to distinguish it from process_list or process_output, but the description never names a sibling to contrast against, so it stops short of a 5.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any pointer to an alternative like process_list or process_output. The intended use (checking scheduling capacity before launching work) is only implied by the enumerated facets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.