Identify local socket status and requested receive settings. This read-only command diagnoses connections without altering device configurations or enabling transmission.
Report local sockets/requested RX settings. No device setting or TX state readback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds genuine scope information by explicitly excluding device-setting and TX-state readback, which prevents over-trusting the result, but says nothing about freshness, caching, or whether sockets are merely requested versus established.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, and the scope limit is placed immediately after the purpose. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.
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?
The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, which compensates for part of the brevity. Still, for a status tool sitting among rp_connection_probe and three diagnostics siblings, the description does not supply enough to select it confidently or to know what question it answers.
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 schema-level burden is nil. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument 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?
"Report local sockets/requested RX settings" gives a verb and a resource, but "local sockets/requested RX settings" is jargon that a caller cannot easily resolve into a concrete outcome. It is not distinguishable from rp_connection_probe or rp_device_diagnostics on the strength of the description alone.
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 clause "No device setting or TX state readback" implies the tool should not be used for device-level or transmit-side information, so there is a partial when-not. However, no sibling is named as the alternative, so an agent has to guess whether rp_connection_probe, rp_device_diagnostics, or rp_system_diagnostics is the right substitute.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.