Check the connected XR18 mixer's identity, network details, firmware version, guardrail limits, and pending change count to verify setup before adjusting settings.
Connection info: model, name, IP, firmware, guardrail limits and change count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds the specific data fields returned, which is helpful context. However, it does not mention any potential side effects or limitations beyond the annotations, but since it's read-only, that's acceptable.
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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key fields. Efficient and no fluff.
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 no-parameter read-only status tool, the description adequately covers what it returns. Without an output schema, listing the fields is sufficient.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters as 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 it returns connection info and lists specific fields (model, name, IP, firmware, guardrail limits, change count). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like board_overview or channel_detail, but the resource scope is clear.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It is a read-only status tool, but the description does not mention when to prefer it over other info tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.