statusVigi-Sky API health, Hatch archive size, public observation counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| citations | Yes | ||
| provenance | Yes | ||
| mcp_version | No | ||
| availability | No | ||
| public_consented_dossiers | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "citations",
+ "provenance"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, making the tool's safe, read-only, and non-destructive nature clear. The description adds context about the specific data (API health, archive size, observation counts) without contradicting annotations, but does not reveal additional behavioral traits (e.g., caching behavior, authentication requirements).
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 extremely concise, using a single sentence with a list to convey all key outputs. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete for a status/health endpoint. It covers the key data categories returned. The only minor gap is not mentioning that the output schema fully describes the structure, but the context signal already notes it has 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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The description adds meaning by listing the types of data returned, which is helpful beyond the empty schema.
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 provides Vigi-Sky API health, Hatch archive size, and public observation counts. It references a specific resource (the Vigi-Sky API and related stats) and uses a clear verb ("health, ... size, ... counts"), though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'capabilities'.
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 lists what data the tool returns, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as 'capabilities' or 'hatch_stats'. It implies usage for checking system status and counts, but lacks explicit when/when-not or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.