{"version":"2.1.251","anchor":"ide-hosts-can-ask-whether-remote-control-could-ever-work","canonical_anchor":"ide-hosts-can-ask-whether-remote-control-could-ever-work","heading":"IDE hosts can ask whether Remote Control could ever work","tier":"internal","area":"IDE Integration","scope":null,"heads_up":null,"url":"https:\/\/changelogs.core-directive.com\/v\/2.1.251\/e\/ide-hosts-can-ask-whether-remote-control-could-ever-work","release_url":"https:\/\/changelogs.core-directive.com\/v\/2.1.251","markdown":"### IDE hosts can ask whether Remote Control could ever work\n\nEditors can now ask whether Remote Control could ever work in your deployment.\n\n**What**\n\nThe handshake an editor extension makes with Claude Code can now return `remote_control_available`, saying whether Remote Control is possible in this deployment at all: not turned off by managed settings, not running inside a remote environment, and on a first-party provider. Editors can use it to hide the Remote Control affordance where it can never work. Older CLIs omit the field, and it is treated as available.\n\n**Details**\n\n- Deliberately separate from transient state such as whether you are signed in or in the rollout, so hiding the UI is a permanent decision rather than a flicker.\n\n**Evidence**\n\n`remote_control_available`\n\n- Area: IDE Integration\n- Tier: Under the hood\n- Useful: 2\/5\n- Signal: 3\/5"}