statusChecks if a Limoni app is reachable and reports its screen size, focused widget, and allowed automation actions: input, screen text, and input values.
Reports whether the application is reachable, its screen size, the focused widget, and what its automation policy allows: input, screen text, and input values.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the exact content surfaced, including the automation policy (input, screen text, input values), which tells the agent what capabilities it can expect without an output schema.
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?
A single dense sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the most important fact (reachability) before the enumerated details. Appropriately sized for a zero-parameter probe.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so across four dimensions including the automation policy. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits any note on result format or how policy restrictions manifest.
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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter behavior.
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?
Uses a clear verb ("Reports") and enumerates the specific resource details returned: reachability, screen size, focused widget, and automation policy. This distinguishes it from general siblings like screen or tree by framing it as a status/policy probe, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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?
Offers no when-to-use guidance or routing against alternatives such as screen, tree, or find, even though the sibling set clearly overlaps in returning application state. The agent must infer that this is the pre-flight reachability check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.