data_status报告数据的新鲜度：每个数据文件的更新时间、距今天数、是否超过 60 天阈值。当用户质疑数据是否过时时调用。
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": "data_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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields and the concrete 60-day staleness threshold, which is real behavioral context beyond the (empty) schema. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but a zero-parameter reporting tool has no mutation surface to warn about.
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 sentences, zero waste: the reporting content is front-loaded and the invocation trigger follows. Nothing is repeated or padded.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description still tells the agent what it will receive (per-file update time, days since, threshold flag), which is enough to decide and invoke. Minor gap: no indication of which data files are covered or the return format.
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 schema takes no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related the description needs to compensate for.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('报告数据的新鲜度') and enumerates exactly what is reported: each file's update time, days elapsed, and the 60-day threshold flag. The purpose is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the model/hardware-focused siblings, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.
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?
Gives an explicit trigger: '当用户质疑数据是否过时时调用' (call when the user questions whether the data is stale). That is a clear when-to-use condition, but there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative tool.
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.