Verifies whether Datto EDR credentials are configured and lists available domains without calling the API. Use it to confirm setup before a live connection test.
Check whether Datto EDR credentials are configured and list the available domains. Does not call the API; use datto_edr_test_connection for a live check.
| 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?
The key behavioral trait — this is an offline configuration inspection that makes no network call — is stated outright and goes beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, which only imply it. What is missing is any hint about the shape or scope of the returned domain list, but with no output schema that gap is minor.
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 sentences, zero padding, with the primary behavior front-loaded and the disambiguation second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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, non-destructive status probe with annotations covering the safety profile, the description says enough to call it correctly and interpret the intent. The only shortfall is that it does not indicate what the returned domain list represents or how a failure looks, which matters slightly since no output schema exists.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The text correctly implies the tool is parameterless by describing an unconditional check.
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 (check whether credentials are configured) plus a concrete secondary output (list available domains), which is more than a restatement of the name. It also distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by naming datto_edr_test_connection 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?
Gives both the exclusion ("Does not call the API") and the alternative plus the condition that selects it ("use datto_edr_test_connection for a live check"). An agent can route between the two tools without opening either schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.