Generate a safe PowerShell probe to inspect your Windows environment locally without altering system state. Run it yourself to gather system information.
Return a non-mutating PowerShell probe the user can run locally; never claims automatic computer access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does well: it discloses that the tool is non-mutating, that it produces something for the user to run locally rather than gaining access, and explicitly warns against claiming automatic computer access — a critical anti-hallucination guard. It could add more about what the probe covers or how results should be handled, but the key safety-relevant behaviors are clearly disclosed.
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 sentence with two clauses and zero filler. The key facts are front-loaded: 'Return a non-mutating PowerShell probe' leads with the verb, artifact type, and safety trait, followed by the critical user-run-locally caveat. Every word earns its place.
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 parameterless script-generation tool, the core contract is covered: what it returns, that it's safe/non-mutating, and how it relates to user execution. However, with no output schema, the description leaves unstated what the probe actually inspects and what follow-up the agent should perform (e.g., asking the user to run it and report output). These are notable but minor gaps for such a simple tool.
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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning or syntax; the schema already covers the (empty) parameter space completely at 100%. The description appropriately focuses on the return value instead.
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 action ('Return') and a concrete resource ('a non-mutating PowerShell probe the user can run locally'). The Windows environment probe is clearly distinct from the Python/GitHub-focused siblings, so an agent can tell it apart. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the environment the probe captures, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's exact scope.
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 context is implied: when the agent needs Windows environment information but lacks direct machine access, it returns a probe for the user to run. The phrase 'never claims automatic computer access' hints at the appropriate context but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The sibling tools are so domain-different that mis-selection is unlikely, but the guidance is still implicit rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.