Display a visual dashboard of stack health, system metrics, and active alerts, giving operators an at-a-glance overview even when dependent services are unreachable.
Display a rich, premium status dashboard using Prefab UI. Provides a visual overview of stack health, system metrics, and active alerts. Hardened: operates in Degraded Mode when Docker or stack services are unreachable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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; it earns credit for disclosing the Degraded Mode fallback when Docker or stack services are unreachable, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it does not state that it is read-only, that it requires a Prefab-capable UI client, or what is returned to a non-visual consumer.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by content scope and resilience behavior; no wasted preamble. The word 'premium' is mild marketing filler but does not impede comprehension.
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, output-schema-free rendering tool, the description covers what it shows and how it behaves when the backend is down. The main residual gap is whether the caller receives an image, a payload, or a client-side render, but overall it is sufficient to call correctly.
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 the schema is trivially complete, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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?
States a specific verb (Display) and resource (status dashboard via Prefab UI) and names the content it surfaces: stack health, metrics, active alerts. It is distinguishable from data-returning siblings like check_stack_status, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named observability_*_card tools.
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?
Usage is only implied by the phrase 'visual overview' – an agent can infer this is for human-facing rendering rather than programmatic status checks, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus check_stack_status or the card siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.