Retrieve the CLO dialog currently open, including its title, message, and buttons, to inspect prompts or required decisions.
The dialog open in CLO right now, if any: title, message and buttons. Commands answer CLO's acknowledge-only dialogs (OK / Close) themselves and list them in clo_dialogs; a dialog that needs a decision stops the command with its text and buttons instead of hanging.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that acknowledge-only dialogs are handled automatically and that decision dialogs stop commands with text and buttons, but it does not state this tool's own side effects, safety profile, or behavior when no dialog exists beyond the phrase 'if any'.
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 front-loaded with what the tool returns and then adds relevant dialog-handling context. It is reasonably concise, though the second sentence is a dense run-on that mixes behavior of other commands with this tool's context.
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 getter with no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return content. The main gap is routing guidance: it does not explicitly tell the agent when to use get_clo_dialog versus answer_clo_dialog.
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 input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description cannot add parameter-level meaning, and that is appropriate for a no-argument getter.
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 states the resource and return payload: the currently open CLO dialog, if any, including its title, message, and buttons. It does not explicitly name answer_clo_dialog as a sibling alternative, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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: call this to inspect the dialog currently open in CLO. The description explains how commands handle acknowledge-only dialogs and decision dialogs, but it never states when to choose this tool over answer_clo_dialog or other dialog-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.