Check the MCP server's listener status, PII redaction configuration, and processed message counts for Android SMS, calls, and notifications via KDE Connect.
Estado del servidor: listener, configuracion de captura/PII y conteos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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. It states what information is returned (listener, capture/PII config, counts) but does not explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation or mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. For a status tool, this is likely safe, but the description does not make that explicit.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the key components. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.
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 has an output schema, so return values are defined elsewhere. The description covers the key aspects of what the status includes (listener, capture/PII config, counts), which is sufficient for a simple zero-parameter tool. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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, so there is nothing to explain. The schema description coverage is 100% (no parameters), and the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.
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 clearly states the tool returns server status, listing specific components (listener, capture/PII configuration, counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_devices or get_activity, which target different domains (devices, activities). The verb is implied but the resource and scope are specific and 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 tool is for checking server status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any conditions or exclusions. An agent can infer the usage from the purpose, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.