Report GhostKey server status and check whether the configured ScriptMasterLabs x402 authority is reachable. Unknown stays unknown; no health result is fabricated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that unknown statuses are not fabricated, which is a non-obvious honesty guarantee. However, it does not explain possible result values, side effects, or what 'status' concretely includes.
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. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat about not fabricating results is stated efficiently.
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?
For a zero-parameter status tool, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It would be more complete with expected response shape, but the simple scope mitigates the lack of an output schema.
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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. The mention of a 'configured' authority adds useful context about what the status check targets, satisfying the baseline for a no-parameter 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?
Description uses a concrete verb ('Report') and resource ('GhostKey server status') and adds a specific reachability check against the ScriptMasterLabs x402 authority. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like catalog, policy, and quote.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of conditions that would make a sibling more appropriate. The intended usage is implied by the tool's purpose, but nothing actively routes the agent.
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 distinct purpose: catalog lists capabilities, policy returns policy details, quote explains pricing acquisition, and status reports server health. No two tools overlap in function.
All tool names follow the exact same pattern: 'ghostkey_' prefix followed by a single noun. Consistent and predictable naming scheme.
Four tools is well-scoped for a server focused on providing GhostKey metadata and status. Each tool addresses a clear need without unnecessary bloat.
The server covers catalog, policy, quote, and status, which are the core informational functions. It intentionally does not expose callable paid capabilities, so there are no obvious dead ends for its stated purpose.