get responder status: whether it's configured, the current config, connection and pause status, and activity counts for the last 30 days. requires read scope.
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": "get_responder"
}
}| 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?
The annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned status components, the 30-day activity window, and the read-scope requirement. It does not describe response shape or pagination, but it adds meaningful detail 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 is a single front-loaded sentence: it states the operation first, then lists the status fields, then closes with the scope requirement. There is no filler and every clause contributes useful information.
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 status getter with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it says what the tool returns, the time window for activity counts, and the required read scope. The annotations cover the safety profile, so no critical context is missing.
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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are no inputs to disambiguate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: getting responder status, and it enumerates what that status includes (configured state, current config, connection and pause status, 30-day activity counts). This is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as get_conversation_responder or configure_responder.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_conversation_responder or configure_responder. The only prerequisite mentioned is 'requires read scope,' which is an authorization requirement rather than usage guidance.
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.