statusPlatform status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| platform | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Platform ID | |
| name | No | Platform name | |
| locales | No | Supported locales | |
| incidents | No | Current incidents | |
| maintenances | No | Current maintenances |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "platform": "na1"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Platform ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "incidents": {
+ "description": "Current incidents",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "locales": {
+ "description": "Supported locales",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "maintenances": {
+ "description": "Current maintenances",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Platform name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating a safe, read-only operation. However, the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., error handling, output format) beyond what annotations provide.
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?
At two words, the description is severely underspecified. It does not earn its place as informative content; it sacrifices clarity for brevity.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too vague to inform appropriate use. It lacks essential context such as what 'status' means, making the tool effectively undefined for an agent.
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 coverage for the single parameter 'platform' is 0%, and the description fails to explain what values are valid or what the parameter represents. The description adds no semantic value beyond the 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?
Description 'Platform status.' is a vague tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what aspect of platform status (e.g., server health, API availability, user status). It fails to distinguish from numerous sibling tools.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description provides no context about typical use cases or when not to use it.
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.