nordvpn_statusCheck NordVPN connection status: connected/disconnected, auto-connect, snooze, and last known location. Does NOT open NordVPN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | ||
| connected | No | ||
| installed | No | ||
| app_running | No | ||
| auto_connect | No | ||
| last_location | No | ||
| snoozed_until | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark read-only, non-destructive, open-world false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it will not launch the NordVPN application, and it returns specific status fields like autoreconnect, snooze state, and last known location. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
One focused sentence plus one brief clarifying negative sentence. It front-loads the core verb and resource, lists concrete output facets, and avoids fluff. Every clause earns its place.
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, an output schema present, and annotations describing side-effect profile, the description supplies the necessary intent and the single most important caveat (does not open NordVPN). No gaps remain for an agent to choose and invoke this 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?
There are zero parameters, so the vacuous 100% schema coverage means the schema contains all relevant information. The description correctly implies a parameterless call and adds no confusing parameter semantics. Baseline 4 applies.
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 opens with an action verb 'Check' and a specific resource ('NordVPN connection status'), then enumerates the exact status aspects returned (connected/disconnected, auto-connect, snooze, last known location). The negative clause 'Does NOT open NordVPN' further disambiguates it from UI-launching tools; among siblings nordvpn_diagnose and nordvpn_servers have different scopes.
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 implies this tool is for reading VPN connection state, but it never states when it should be chosen over nordvpn_diagnose or nordvpn_servers, nor what to do if status is abnormal. It only offers a negative usage note (does not open the app). Therefore usage guidance is present but only implicit.
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.
Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.
The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.
With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.
For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.