Displays library connection and search status as a Prefab card, reporting whether the OSC bridge is connected to Mixxx and any active search or crate context.
Show library connection and search status as a Prefab card.
Reports whether the OSC bridge is connected to Mixxx and any active search or crate context.
Returns: PrefabApp card with library KPIs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the output is a rendered Prefab card reporting OSC-bridge connection and active search/crate context, which implies a non-mutating read. However it never explicitly states that it is safe/non-destructive or whether it has side effects on the UI.
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?
Three short lines, front-loaded with the action, and the 'Returns' block clearly separates output from purpose. Every sentence is relevant, though the output line is slightly redundant with the first sentence.
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, annotation-free read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope and the shape of the return value (PrefabApp card with library KPIs). This is sufficient for correct invocation, with only safety/behavioral wording left implicit.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Show library connection and search status as a Prefab card') and the domain ('library') clearly separates it from siblings like show_deck_status_card and show_mixer_status_card. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternatives, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling status cards. The agent must infer that this is the tool to call when it wants a readout of library/OSC state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.