Inspect only your RESLA drones, UTC daily departure allowance, trips and receipts. Requires read + expeditions. Free; no spending or automatic collection.
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": "expedition_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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the required permissions (read + expeditions), that the operation is free with no spending, and that it does not trigger automatic collection — a genuine side-effect disclaimer. It stops short of stating the return shape or whether results are cached/limited.
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?
A single dense sentence with the scope and resource list front-loaded, followed by the permission and cost constraints. No filler, though the compressed phrasing ('read + expeditions', 'RESLA') assumes domain familiarity.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the categories of data returned (drones, allowance, trips, receipts). Combined with the permission and no-side-effect notes, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the exact response shape is unspecified.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to compensate for, and it correctly implies no input is required.
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?
States a specific verb (Inspect) and enumerates the exact resources returned: RESLA drones, UTC daily departure allowance, trips, receipts. The qualifier 'only your' scopes it to the caller's own data, which separates it from any global view. It doesn't name the sibling expedition_send/expedition_collect explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
'Inspect only' plus 'no automatic collection' implies this is the read-only status view and that collecting is a separate action, which nudges the agent toward expedition_collect. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit 'use X to send/collect' routing statement, so usage is only implied.
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.