Check kweenkl server connectivity and status. Use this to verify the connection is working before sending notifications. No authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is already clear. The description adds behavioral context by stating 'No authentication required' and that it checks connectivity, which augments 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no redundant 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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lacks details about the output format, but given the straightforward purpose, it is adequate.
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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. Baseline for no parameters is 4; the description doesn't need to add parameter details.
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 clearly states the verb ('Check') and resource ('kweenkl server connectivity and status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'kweenkl_login' by specifying it's for connectivity verification and requires no authentication.
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 provides explicit when to use: 'Use this to verify the connection is working before sending notifications.' It also mentions 'No authentication required.' While it doesn't name alternatives, the context is clear.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: fetch retrieves by ID, kweenkl sends notifications, login and login_check handle auth, status checks connectivity, and search queries history. No ambiguity.
Tools mix generic verbs like 'fetch' and 'search' with the 'kweenkl_' prefix for auth and status tools, and 'kweenkl' as a standalone verb tool. This is somewhat inconsistent but still readable.
6 tools is well-scoped for a notification service. Each tool serves a needed function without bloat.
Lacks channel management tools (create, update, delete) and a listing tool beyond search. Users cannot fully manage the lifecycle of channels or notifications.
