Retrieves the current active window state in the 1C test client, giving agents the context needed to identify which window is in focus before performing UI actions.
Return active 1C test client window state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | No | default-18 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only query, but the description does not disclose whether the tool blocks, errors when no active window exists, or what side effects if any it has. Minimal behavioral information is provided.
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, concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simple apparent purpose.
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?
Given that there is no output schema, no annotations, and only a vague 'window state' phrase, the description is not complete enough for an agent to know what the returned state contains, what the expected format is, or how to interpret edge cases such as no active window. The tool's position among many window-related siblings amplifies the need for more context.
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 0%, and the description does not mention session_id at all. The only parameter is optional and has a default, and its name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about why a session is needed, how the session ID relates to the active window, or what value formats are valid.
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 is a specific verb+resource phrase: 'Return active 1C test client window state.' It clearly identifies a query operation for the active window consistent with the tool's name Mend can be distinguished from siblings like windows_list (listing windows) and activate_window (changing the active window). However, 'state' is somewhat vague, as it does not define what aspects of the window state are returned.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as windows_list, activate_window, wait_window, or current_element. The intended use is only implicit from the name and phrase 'active window state,' but there are no explicit conditions or exclusions to help an agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.