Lists running or queued scanner tasks with their state and percent complete; an empty list indicates the instrument is idle.
List running or queued tasks (e.g. a scan in progress) with their state and percent complete (0-100). An empty list means the instrument is idle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: it names the returned fields (state, percent complete with the 0-100 range) and, most usefully, explains that an empty list means the instrument is idle rather than an error — a non-obvious interpretation rule an agent would otherwise guess at.
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 no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the idle-state interpretation follows immediately as the one piece of non-obvious context.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response, and it does so adequately by naming state, percent complete, and the empty-list meaning. It falls short only on routing: nothing tells the agent how this differs from scanner_status or when to poll this versus scanner_wait_for_scan.
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 and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on arguments and instead uses the space for return-value semantics.
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 (list running or queued tasks) and describes the payload: state plus percent complete (0-100). That is concrete enough to distinguish it from write tools like scanner_preview_to_angles or scanner_download_scanfile, but it never differentiates itself from the closely-related scanner_status or scanner_wait_for_scan, which also read scanner 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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'call this to see if a scan is in progress' from the scan-in-progress example and the idle-when-empty note. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over scanner_status or scanner_wait_for_scan, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.