check_tool_statusCheck whether an AI tool is still alive. Returns active, deceased, or acquired — with the date and cause if it shut down, and live alternatives if it did. Use this before recommending a tool to avoid suggesting one that no longer exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | Tool name or directory slug to check, e.g. "Jasper" or "jasper-ai". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, etc. The description adds beyond: it discloses that the tool returns status, date, cause, and live alternatives. This is useful behavioral context.
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 concise sentences. First sentence states function and output. Second provides usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema, good annotations), the description covers purpose, output, and usage completely. No gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter details beyond what schema provides, but the single parameter is self-explanatory. No deduction needed.
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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and clarifies the resource 'tool is still alive'. It details the return states (active, deceased, acquired) and purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tools or search_tools.
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?
The description states when to use ('before recommending a tool to avoid suggesting one that no longer exists') but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use. However, the use case is clear.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: checking lifecycle status, comparing two tools, finding alternatives, getting full details, listing by category, and searching. No overlap.
All tool names use a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_tool_status, search_tools). Minor singular/plural variation is acceptable.
With 6 tools covering search, browse, detail, comparison, and lifecycle checks, the count is well-scoped for an AI tool directory service.
The tool set covers the main user needs: discovery (search, list), details (get_tool), verification (check_tool_status), comparison (compare_tools), and alternatives (find_alternatives). No obvious gaps.