Spss Check Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral insight: whether SPSS is fully installed or the server is in file-only mode, which fundamentally changes what other tools can do. It does not explicitly state that the call is side-effect-free or local, leaving a small gap, but the returned information is well described.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core status-check purpose and then the when-to-call guidance. Every phrase earns its place without repetition.

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?

Given a zero-parameter tool, no annotations, and an output schema that documents return values, the description covers everything needed: what is checked, why it matters (installed vs file-only), and when to call it. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty schema means there is no parameter semantics to document, and the description correctly focuses on return content instead.

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 ('Check the SPSS MCP server status') and enumerates exactly what is reported: available capabilities, installed vs file-only mode, SPSS path, library versions, and configuration. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which perform analysis rather than environment introspection.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first to understand what tools are available,' giving a clear invocation context. No alternative sibling competes for this purpose, so no exclusion guidance is needed.

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