Verify the editor bridge is connected and responsive by requesting a live reply; a timeout indicates a disconnected or unresponsive editor, not success.
Request a live response from the explicitly started editor bridge. Timeout means disconnected or unresponsive; it is not success.
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations do not provide: timeout means the bridge is disconnected or unresponsive and specifically is not success.
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 two tightly focused sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical timeout interpretation.
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, read-only ping tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the key timeout caveat. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying what a successful live response looks like or how it differs from editor_status, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies because the schema is empty and no additional parameter meaning is needed.
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 states a specific verb ('Request') and resource ('live response from the explicitly started editor bridge'), making the health-check purpose clear. It does not differentiate against sibling tools such as editor_status, which likely has overlapping connectivity-checking semantics, so it falls short of a 5.
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 only implied by 'explicitly started editor bridge' and the liveness-check nature of a ping. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool instead of editor_status or other bridge tools, and no prerequisite or exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.