Reports whether Altair Inspire is installed, including version, batch executor path, running processes, free memory, and runs directory, without launching Inspire.
Report whether Altair Inspire is installed/found, its version, batch executor path, running Inspire-related processes, free memory and the runs directory. Does not start Inspire.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait: it only reports and does not launch Inspire, so there are no side effects. The enumerated return surface (version, executor path, processes, memory, runs directory) further tells the agent what evidence it will get, though failure behavior when Inspire is absent is not described.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, with the positive scope stated first and the negative scope ('Does not start Inspire') closing it out. Every clause names a distinct piece of reported information.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description compensates well by listing the specific fields returned, which is exactly what an agent needs before calling a status probe. It falls short only on edge cases such as what the report shows when Inspire is not installed or whether the process/memory scan is expensive.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the schema has nothing to leave undocumented. The description correctly says nothing about inputs, which is consistent with the empty properties object.
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 verb 'Report' is paired with an explicit enumeration of the resources inspected (install presence, version, batch executor path, running processes, free memory, runs directory), which is unambiguous. It also carves out scope against action-oriented siblings by stating 'Does not start Inspire', though no sibling is named directly.
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: an agent can infer this is a diagnostic/pre-flight check to run before invoking inspire_run_python or the export tools, but the description never says when to prefer it or what to do with the result. The single exclusion ('Does not start Inspire') is the only explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.