Retorna status operacional resumido do conector MCP para o tenant autenticado, sem IDs internos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | ||
| server | Yes | ||
| success | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| database | Yes | ||
| tenant_scope | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only notes the return type and the absence of internal IDs, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what authentication is required, or any other behavioral characteristics. For a healthcheck tool this is minimal information.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that delivers the core message without any filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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 low complexity (no parameters, likely simple healthcheck), the description is mostly adequate. It mentions tenant context and output emphasis, but could benefit from noting that this is a read-only monitoring tool. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.
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 and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the schema already communicates the lack of parameters.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retorna status operacional resumido do conector MCP' (Returns summarized operational status of the MCP connector). It specifies the verb (returns), the resource (MCP connector), and scope (authenticated tenant), and it is easily distinguished from sibling get/list/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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative references are provided, but the healthcheck purpose is implied by the name and description. It gives no exclusions or prerequisites, so usage context is only inferred.
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 clearly distinct purpose, targeting a specific entity or reference data. The get/list distinction is standard and unambiguous. Reference list tools are also clearly separated by domain.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the prefix 'music360_'. Verbs are consistently 'get', 'list', 'search', or 'healthcheck', and the naming is uniform throughout. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
At 33 tools, the set is quite large, exceeding the threshold where tool count becomes unwieldy. While the domain has many entity types, the lack of mutation tools means many similar read-only list/get tools inflate the count without adding corresponding functionality.
The tool set is severely incomplete for a management system: there are no create, update, or delete tools for any entity. The reference list tools explicitly reference create tools like 'music360_create_fonograma' that do not exist, leaving clear dead ends and an inability to perform core operations.
