Tells you EXACTLY which OrgGen tools are loaded for this API key and which are not, with their family and the address where the setting is changed. Useful before concluding that a capability is missing from the product: a tool absent from your list may exist and simply be outside the chosen profile. No argument, no project data, available at all times.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds meaningful context by noting it takes no arguments, uses no project data, and is available at all times, plus that the result carries family and the address of the setting. It stops short of describing the exact response shape.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and using a concrete contrast (loaded vs not). The closing sentences on availability and no-argument behavior are slightly redundant but each adds usable signal.
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 no-param, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers what flows out (loaded/not loaded, family, address) and the invocation constraints. Only the precise response format is left implicit, which is acceptable.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter documentation is 4. The description correctly reinforces that the tool accepts no argument, matching the empty schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: it reports which OrgGen tools are loaded for the API key and which are not. This is clearly distinguishable from near-siblings like whoami (identity) and get_config (configuration) without opening any schema.
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?
Gives an explicit use case: consult it before concluding a capability is missing, because an absent tool may exist outside the chosen profile. It lacks an explicit when-not/alternative routing, but the conditional context is strong and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
