WeAD's truth surface: what is actually live versus early or roadmap. Read this before making claims about WeAD.
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_status"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it does signal authority ('truth surface', read-before-claiming), implying the result should be trusted as canonical. It does not confirm read-only semantics, describe the shape or size of the response, or explain what 'early' and 'roadmap' values mean in practice.
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, front-loaded with the tool's role, with no repetition or filler. The only cost is that the leading phrase is jargon rather than plain description.
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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say roughly what comes back (a list of features with status labels? a status object?). It establishes trust and timing but leaves the response shape entirely to discovery, which is a real gap given nothing else documents it.
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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing parameter-level the description needs to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.
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 conveys the returned content ('what is actually live versus early or roadmap'), which distinguishes it from the document-oriented siblings, but the metaphorical framing 'truth surface' never states plainly what the resource is (features? capabilities? product areas?) or supplies a verb like 'returns'. An agent can infer it's a capability-availability read, but only by interpreting jargon.
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?
'Read this before making claims about WeAD' is an explicit, actionable when-to-use directive that tells the agent to consult this tool prior to asserting anything about the product. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the positive trigger is unambiguous.
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.