get_api_statusCheck Carbone API health and version. Returns the current API version and a status message. Useful for verifying connectivity and confirming which Carbone version is active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Status message returned by the API. | |
| version | Yes | The running Carbone API version. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "message": {
+ "description": "Status message returned by the API.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "version": {
+ "description": "The running Carbone API version.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "version",
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable, external-facing read. The description adds that the result is a version plus a status message, but says nothing about failure modes, whether an unhealthy API returns an error or a status flag, or any auth requirement for an openWorld call.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, with no filler. The second sentence restates what the output schema already carries and the third partially repeats it, so there is a small amount of redundancy.
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, read-only health probe with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose, return content and usage context. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter meaning is missing.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Check Carbone API health and version') plus the concrete payload ('current API version and a status message'). None of the siblings (list_templates, convert_document, render_document, delete_template, etc.) overlap with a connectivity/version probe, so an agent can select it unambiguously.
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?
It states when this tool is the right choice ('verifying connectivity and confirming which Carbone version is active'), which is clear contextual guidance. It stops short of any explicit exclusion or named alternative, so it sits below the top band.
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.