MCP-ADAPTER

adapter_status

Check which applications are detected, why automation tools are exposed or hidden, and the active security policy.

Instructions

Which applications were detected, which automation tools are exposed or hidden (and why), and the security policy.

Tool call template

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": "adapter_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether it probes the live system, any latency or side effects, or how the 'why' for hidden tools is determined. It only lists the data categories returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the most important content (detected applications, exposed/hidden tools, security policy) front-loaded. Efficient, though it reads as a fragment rather than a structured statement of purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it adequately signals the reported categories. However, given sibling overlap with security_policy and software_overview, an agent lacks any signal about how this status view differs from those tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description enumerates the exact content the tool reports: detected applications, which automation tools are exposed or hidden (and why), and the security policy. The purpose is clear, but it is a noun-phrase content list rather than a verb+resource statement, and it does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like software_overview or security_policy.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, no conditions or prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative siblings (software_overview, security_policy) that cover similar ground. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.