Check KeyShot MCP status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by noting it performs a 'minimal KeyShot headless startup' and explicitly states the tool does not modify a user scene, which reinforces the non-destructive nature.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that uses a strong verb ('Diagnose') and lays out all covered areas without extra words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's purpose.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema (as indicated by context), the description fully covers what is needed: what the tool checks and its safety guarantee. No additional return-value explanation is required due to the output schema.

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 is nothing to describe beyond the schema. The schema coverage is 100% (empty object), and the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a diagnostic action ('Diagnose') and specifies the exact resources it covers (local installation, output access, presets, bridge files, minimal headless startup). This distinct focus on status checking differentiates it from sibling tools like rendering, importing, or material operations.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to check local installation and setup status) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations to avoid. However, the diagnostic purpose is self-evident relative to the sibling tool names, which are all action-oriented (render, apply, import).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.