Public remote provider configuration and operational limits. No external provider calls. Wikidata is available; Google Knowledge Graph is disabled.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "kg_status"
}
}| 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, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond those: no external provider calls are made, Wikidata is available, and Google Knowledge Graph is disabled. That backend-availability information materially affects whether sibling lookup tools will succeed.
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 short sentences with no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (provider availability) is stated up front after the framing sentence. It is slightly cryptic in the opening noun phrase but wastes no words.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does convey the key operational state (which providers are on/off, that no external calls occur). A brief note on the response shape would make it fully self-sufficient, but what is present covers the agent's practical needs.
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 there is nothing for the description to clarify; the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage, no properties). Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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 reads as a noun phrase ('Public remote provider configuration and operational limits') rather than naming a verb, so it never explicitly says this tool reports knowledge-graph provider status. An agent can infer it returns configuration/availability info, but the phrasing is elliptical and doesn't distinguish the tool's role cleanly from the other kg_* lookups.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The only indirect hint is the operational statement about provider availability, which an agent could use to decide whether lookups will work, but that is inference rather than stated guidance.
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.