Checks local dependencies and Keychain configuration for arXiv/DOI translation; set check_api to query official models without paid translations or exposing keys.
检查本机依赖和 Keychain 配置。check_api=true 查询官方模型列表，不进行付费翻译，不返回密钥。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| check_api | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only/open-world/non-destructive profile, and the description adds meaningful extra context: no paid translation is performed and secrets are not returned. That is genuinely useful safety disclosure beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about output shape.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then the flag behavior and side-effect guarantees. No filler, though the terse telegraphic style borders on under-explanation.
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 simple diagnostic tool with no output schema and one boolean parameter, the description covers purpose, the parameter's effect, and the side-effect boundaries. Adequate for correct invocation, with only return-shape details 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?
With one parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description must carry the load, and it does explain that check_api=true queries the official model list while the default leaves it off. It does not describe latency or cost implications of that call, but the core semantics are covered.
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 concrete verb+resource pair: checks local dependencies and Keychain configuration. This clearly separates it from the translation siblings (translate_papers, get_translation, resume_translation) without needing to name them explicitly.
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?
Implied usage as a preflight/diagnostic status check, and it clarifies what check_api=true does. However, it never states when an agent should call this vs. jumping into translation, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.