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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns 'the current API version and a status message', providing behavioral context beyond the 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?
The description consists of three concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple health-check tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, return value, and use case completely.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description appropriately omits parameter details as there are none.
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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and the resource 'Carbone API health and version', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with templates and documents.
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 explicitly states it is 'useful for verifying connectivity and confirming which Carbone version is active', providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the purpose is self-evident.
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 targets a distinct resource or action: document conversion, template lifecycle, metadata, status checks, and listing operations are all clearly separated. The potential overlap between convert_document and render_document is explicitly addressed in their descriptions, with clear guidance on when to use each.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: convert_document, delete_template, download_template, get_api_status, list_templates, render_document, upload_template, etc. Verbs are precise and match the operation performed, making the API predictable.
Eleven tools is well-scoped for a document templating and rendering server. Each tool covers a meaningful part of the workflow: template management, rendering, conversion, metadata, and account-level discovery, without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the full template lifecycle: upload, list, download, update metadata, delete, and render. It also includes conversion, status checking, capability discovery, and tag/category enumeration, leaving no obvious dead ends for typical Carbone workflows.