get_statusIngestion health per source and zone: last successful fetch timestamp and last error, if any. Free. Use it to explain stale or missing values before drawing conclusions from them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| now | No | ||
| sources | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "now": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "sources": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "last_error": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "last_ok": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "zone": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "array",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: the tool is free of cost and 'last error, if any' tells the agent the error field is optional. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but for a zero-param read tool that is minor.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, cost, and when to use it. The return payload is front-loaded and nothing is 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 an output schema present, the description need not explain the response shape. It covers purpose, trigger condition, and cost, which is everything an agent needs to call a zero-parameter read tool correctly.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-param tool is 4. The description correctly does not waste space restating an empty schema.
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 ('Ingestion health per source and zone') plus the exact payload ('last successful fetch timestamp and last error'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_latest or get_history, which return data rather than health metadata.
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?
'Use it to explain stale or missing values before drawing conclusions from them' gives a clear triggering condition. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or stating when not to call it, so it falls just short of the top band.
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.