boot_statusRead-only StackFast connector health/status check. Does not expose secrets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | Optional expected wallet/MCP consumer role. A mismatch fails role readiness closed. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| auth | Yes | ||
| tools | Yes | ||
| service | Yes | ||
| generated_at | Yes | ||
| canonical_url | Yes | ||
| role_readiness | Yes | ||
| schema_version | Yes | ||
| role_tool_contract | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / role_tool_contractAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "ok",
- "service",
- "schema_version",
- "generated_at",
- "canonical_url",
- "auth",
- "role_readiness",
- "tools"
-]New value: +[
+ "ok",
+ "service",
+ "schema_version",
+ "generated_at",
+ "canonical_url",
+ "auth",
+ "role_readiness",
+ "role_tool_contract",
+ "tools"
+]Input schema / properties / roleAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional expected wallet/MCP consumer role. A mismatch fails role readiness closed.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / role_readinessAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "authenticated_role": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "authentication": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "catalog": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "diagnostics": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "operational": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "operational_ready": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "profile_source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "role": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "schema_version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "enum": [
+ "degraded",
+ "not_ready"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "transport": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "schema_version",
+ "role",
+ "authenticated_role",
+ "profile_source",
+ "status",
+ "operational_ready",
+ "transport",
+ "authentication",
+ "catalog",
+ "operational",
+ "diagnostics"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "ok",
- "service",
- "schema_version",
- "generated_at",
- "canonical_url",
- "auth",
- "tools"
-]New value: +[
+ "ok",
+ "service",
+ "schema_version",
+ "generated_at",
+ "canonical_url",
+ "auth",
+ "role_readiness",
+ "tools"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a useful guarantee that it does not expose secrets. However, it does not discuss failure behavior, authorization requirements, or any operational side effects beyond the read-only claim.
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 deliver the core purpose and the key confidentiality boundary with zero filler. The essential information is front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place.
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 optional-parameter health check, the description plus annotations, input schema, and output schema cover the operational essentials. A small gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to prefer this status tool over sibling status tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single optional 'role' parameter is already documented in the schema, including its fail-closed behavior on mismatch. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 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 states a specific action and resource: a read-only health/status check of the StackFast connector. The StackFast connector scope clearly distinguishes it from sibling status tools such as ai_receptionist_status and audit_status, and the confidentiality note adds a meaningful boundary.
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 implies when to use the tool—when an agent needs StackFast connector health/status—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. There is no routing guidance beyond the tool's inherent purpose.
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.
Several tools are exact duplicates (talent_scout_my_profile_status and talent_scout_profile_status have identical descriptions), and eight estimator_estimate_* tools share the same generic description with no differentiation. This will cause misselection.
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies: the duplicate profile tools have different naming (my_profile vs profile), and `fetch`/`search` are single-word verbs. Predictability is hampered by these deviations.
65 tools is excessive for a coherent set, especially with many tools covering overlapping actions across multiple unrelated domains (AI receptionist, estimator, talent scout, GrowthOS). The count could be trimmed significantly.
The tool surface is broad and covers many lifecycle operations (create, read, export, record), but the duplicate tools and identical descriptions for estimator operations make it unclear whether all needed operations are present. Some expected operations like delete/update are missing for certain resources.