Get Power BI session details: active model, project, and freshness. Identify whether the session is valid, stale, or mismatched.
Detalle de la sesion: modelo activo, proyecto activo y su frescura.
Distingue una sesion valida de una obsoleta (stale) o de otra que
ocupo el mismo puerto (mismatch).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's ability to distinguish session states (valid, stale, mismatch), which adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or whether it has side effects, permissions, or error conditions.
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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the main output, and the second adds a relevant behavioral distinction. No fluff or repetition.
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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and key state distinctions. However, it could benefit from a note on when to use it or any prerequisites like an active session, which would improve completeness.
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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific details since there are none.
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 clearly states that the tool provides session details including active model, active project, and freshness. It also distinguishes between valid, stale, and mismatched sessions. However, it lacks a specific verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', making it slightly less explicit than a verb-led description.
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?
The description implies usage for checking session state, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbi_test_connection or pbi_capabilities. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.