Check CDP connection status, queue states, and optional provider health diagnostics to verify whether the chat bridge is ready for prompt submission.
Retorna informacoes de status da conexao CDP 127.0.0.1:9222, estado das filas e auto-diagnostico doctor opcional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doctor | No | Se true e conectado ao CDP, executa verificacao de integridade e seletores dos provedores |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool reports CDP connection status and queue state and can optionally run a doctor check, implying a read-oriented diagnostic operation, but it does not state safety, side effects, failure behavior when CDP is unavailable, or output shape.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is dense but efficient, though 'informacoes de status' remains slightly vague.
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 low-complexity, one-optional-parameter status tool, the description names the main status areas. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return-value detail, the meaning of queue state, and behavior when the CDP connection is unavailable.
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 100%, and the doctor parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description only adds that doctor is optional and tied to self-diagnosis, which is marginal beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb, 'Retorna', and specific resources: CDP connection status at 127.0.0.1:9222, queue state, and optional doctor diagnostics. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the chat-action siblings, but it does not explicitly name or compare against them.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus ask_web_chat, list_chat_sessions, cancel_chat, or preview_payload. The optional doctor parameter implies a diagnostic use case, but the description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.