SINT Protocol

sint__show_hud

Update HUD panels with new data to display operator information, triggering real-time interface updates for monitoring system activity.

Instructions

Update a HUD panel with new data. Emits an operator.hud.updated event.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "panel": "<panel>"
    },
    "name": "sint__show_hud"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`panel`	Yes	Which HUD panel to update
`data`	No	Data to display in the panel (any JSON value)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation behavior ('Update') and side effect ('Emits an operator.hud.updated event'), which is valuable. However, it lacks details about permissions needed, whether updates are persistent, rate limits, or what happens if invalid data is provided.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds important behavioral context about event emission. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers what the tool does and mentions an event emission, but lacks details about success/failure responses, data format expectations beyond 'any JSON value', or how this integrates with the broader HUD system.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (panel selection and data payload). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a HUD panel with new data'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying HUD panel updates, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar UI tools like 'sint__interface_mode' or 'sint__interface_status'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions an event emission ('Emits an operator.hud.updated event') which hints at notification purposes, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to sibling tools.

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