Check operational status and recent latency for one or all LLM providers.
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": "check_provider_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | No | Specific provider slug (e.g. openai-gpt4o). Omit for all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing safety and behavior. It indicates a non-destructive status check, but does not mention data freshness, return format, rate limits, or specific status values. Adequate but not rich.
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does without wasted words or repetition of schema fields.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose and scope adequately, but could be slightly more complete by stating the output format (e.g., status and latency values for each provider).
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%, so the schema already explains the provider parameter with an example and the 'omit for all' behavior. The tool description adds little beyond this, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('operational status and recent latency for one or all LLM providers'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_providers and recommend_llm.
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 usage scope by mentioning 'one or all' providers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings list_providers or recommend_llm. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.
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.