Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cardeck

cardeck

by shaonialife
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

bridge_status

Retrieves the current bridge status, including the pairing code and online device list, so AI agents can verify connectivity and see which CarDeck devices are connected.

Instructions

桥状态：配对码与在线设备列表

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bridge_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing behaviorally. It does not state that this is read-only, whether it requires an active bridge connection or auth, whether it blocks, or what happens when no devices are paired.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact clause that front-loads the resource. It is not padded, though the fragmentary phrasing ('桥状态：...') reads more like a label than a sentence explaining the action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description does state what data comes back, which is the main thing an agent needs. It remains thin on operational context such as connection state requirements or failure behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by listing only returned data, leaving nothing for the agent to supply.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (bridge status) and enumerates the contents it surfaces (pairing code and online device list), so an agent can infer this is a status-read tool. However, there is no explicit verb and no articulation of scope, so the purpose is implied rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The siblings (cmd, notify, logs_tail) are functionally distinct so overlap risk is low, but the description does nothing to route the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools