Check the current operational status of your Discord bot to monitor its availability and performance.
Statut actuel du bot
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": "statut_bot"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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. The description implies a read-only operation to check status, but does not specify whether it requires permissions, what data is returned, or any rate limits. It lacks details on output format or potential side effects, leaving behavioral traits unclear.
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, clear phrase in French that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, with no wasted words or complex structure.
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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but insufficient for a status-checking tool. It does not explain what status information is returned (e.g., uptime, errors, metrics), making it incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's full context and use it effectively.
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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids unnecessary details. A baseline score of 4 is assigned as the description does not mislead about parameters.
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 'Statut actuel du bot' (Current status of the bot) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'statut_bot' (bot status) in French. It indicates the tool retrieves status information but lacks specificity about what status aspects are included (e.g., uptime, health, configuration). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on bot status rather than operations like 'add_reaction' or 'create_channel', but remains vague.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, timing, or context for usage. While the tool's purpose suggests it's for checking bot status, there is no explicit advice on scenarios like troubleshooting or monitoring, nor reference to related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.