Check the live connection status of your local Grok Build agent, revealing initialization state, session IDs, last error, and WebSocket URL.
Return connection status: connected?, initialized, sessionIds, lastError, wsUrl.
| 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 of behavioral disclosure. It does state the returned fields, which implies a read-only health-check operation, but it does not explicitly confirm there are no side effects, whether it refreshes the connection, or what error behavior looks like beyond exposing lastError.
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?
One compact sentence with a colon-delimited field list. Every word earns its place and the core purpose is front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description lists the relevant return fields clearly. It leaves some ambiguity about types or structure (e.g., whether sessionIds is an array or whether connected? is a boolean), but it is largely sufficient for a simple status check.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema already exhaustively documents all inputs. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add further parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('connection status'), then enumerates the exact fields returned. This makes it immediately distinguishable from the sibling action tools like grok_session_create and grok_prompt.
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?
The description implies that this tool is for checking connection health, especially alongside action-oriented siblings, but it never states when to call it or when to prefer another tool. There is no explicit guidance such as 'use before creating sessions' or 'call this to diagnose errors.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.