lucky_statusCheck Lucky server health and configuration by probing connectivity, version, modules, and MCP settings. Use this to verify status without exposing OpenToken.
Probe Lucky connectivity, version, modules, and MCP settings. OpenToken is never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by stating 'OpenToken is never returned,' which is a critical safety guarantee. This extra behavioral disclosure is valuable and not redundant.
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?
A single, tightly worded sentence conveys the tool's purpose and a crucial security boundary. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of annotations.
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 zero-parameter, read-only probe with no output schema, the description sufficiently states what will be probed and adds a security caveat. It doesn't describe the return shape, but the listed probe areas imply the response content, which is adequate for this simple tool.
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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description correctly focuses on what the probe reports rather than inputs. No parameter documentation is needed.
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 'Probe' and names precise resources: 'Lucky connectivity, version, modules, and MCP settings.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like lucky_host_status, which targets host state, and other list/get tools. The scope is unambiguous.
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 this is a diagnostic/readiness tool for checking Lucky's status, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. With many sibling tools, some routing context would help, but the tool's simple nature makes usage fairly obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.