Read pending inotify kernel events from active watches, with configurable timeout and event limit. Use to retrieve filesystem activity notifications for desktop automation.
Poll and read available inotify kernel events from active watches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_events | No | Max events to return. | |
| timeout_ms | No | Timeout in ms. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions polling and 'available' events, but does not disclose that reading events may consume them from the kernel queue, whether timeout_ms causes blocking, or what happens when no watches are active.
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?
The description is one concise sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundant restatement.
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 simple two-parameter polling tool, the description plus schema covers the basics, but it leaves important context unstated: event consumption semantics, behavior when no events are available, and how this differs from inotify_wait_event. These gaps matter because there is no output schema and no annotations to clarify behavior.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented by their own descriptions. The tool description adds only slight context with 'poll' and 'available', but no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 ('Poll and read') and a clear resource ('available inotify kernel events from active watches'). It is distinct from unrelated siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with inotify_wait_event.
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?
No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over inotify_wait_event, or how it relates to inotify_watch. The phrase 'active watches' implies a prerequisite, but the conditions for using this tool versus alternatives are left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.