Check local llama-server backend status, including reachability, loaded stylesync adapter and model files, and last latency to diagnose rewrite service problems.
Report the local llama-server backend: reachable, stylesync adapter loaded, model files, last latency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the report contents (reachable, adapter loaded, model files, last latency), which implies a non-mutating diagnostic. It does not say what happens when the backend is unreachable — a returned status versus an error — nor whether the call can block on a network probe, which matters for a health endpoint.
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, front-loaded with the verb and target, then a colon-delimited list of reported facets. Every token carries information; there is no preamble or filler.
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 effectively serves as the return-shape documentation by enumerating the reported fields, which is what an agent needs to interpret the result. The remaining gap is failure semantics — whether an unreachable backend produces a report value or throws.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter detail it does not need.
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?
Names a specific verb (Report) and a specific resource (the local llama-server backend), then enumerates the exact facets reported: reachability, stylesync adapter load state, model files, last latency. That is clearly distinct from the only sibling, rewrite_style, but the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and the diagnostic verb: call this to verify the backend before or after invoking rewrite_style. However, the description never says when to call it, when not to, or names rewrite_style as the downstream consumer, so the agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.