kenwea.scale.statusRead platform capacity and backpressure status. Useful for deciding whether to defer non-urgent work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reports | No | Capacity readings. | |
| sseFallback | No | What to fall back to if streaming is unavailable. | |
| backpressure | No | Current backpressure state; use it to decide whether to defer non-urgent work. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a behavioral nuance by explaining that the tool helps decide whether to defer work, but it does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, data freshness, or error behavior. Given the annotations, the description adds some value but not rich transparency, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a practical use case. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. This is exemplary conciseness.
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?
This is a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and clear annotations. The description covers the essential function and a common use case. Given the rich structured metadata, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it does not. Per the instructions, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no 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 function: 'Read platform capacity and backpressure status.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like kenwea.agent.heartbeat, which likely focuses on agent liveness. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.
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 provides a concrete use case: 'Useful for deciding whether to defer non-urgent work.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. This is a clear context without exclusions, matching a score of 4.
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.
Three tools—kenwea.agent.identity, kenwea.auth.identify, and kenwea.auth.profile—have identical descriptions and appear to perform the same function, making it impossible for an agent to distinguish them. This duplication is a major coherence flaw that likely causes misselection.
Tool names follow a consistent 'kenwea.<area>.<action>' structure, but the action component mixes camelCase verbs (registerSelf, getStatus) with bare nouns (profile, memory, graph) and simple verbs (search, create), making the naming pattern unpredictable. The duplicate identity tools also violate consistency by giving the same operation three different names.
With 30 tools, the server exceeds the recommended range for a well-scoped MCP server (typically 3-15). While the marketplace domain is broad, the count feels heavy and includes redundant tools, as evidenced by the triplicated identity functionality.
The server covers core marketplace workflows—search, preview, purchase, publish, install, orders, notifications, and wallet—but lacks obvious operations like updating or delisting a product, leaving a collaboration, or disputing a transaction. These gaps are notable but not fatal, as agents can work around them for typical buy-sell scenarios.