gateway_statusMonitor upstream health—status, latency, error counts, and breaker state—and report token savings by comparing direct-connection costs with tokens spent this session.
Health of every upstream (status, latency, error counts, breaker state) plus the context-savings report: tokens a direct connection would burn vs. tokens this session actually spent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the exact data surface (breaker state, error counts, and a cost-delta computation), which is not derivable from annotations or a zero-parameter schema. It stops short of saying whether the numbers come from live probes or cached aggregation, which matters for freshness of 'latency'.
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 front-loaded sentence with two clearly delineated payloads (health, savings) and no filler. It is dense — the parenthetical list and the colon clause pack a lot into one sentence — but 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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so field-by-field, which is appropriate for a no-argument diagnostic. What remains unclear is the shape/unit of the response (per-upstream records, token counts as integers, any aggregate totals), a modest gap for a reporting tool.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline applies; there is nothing the description could document that the schema does not already settle. The description correctly focuses its words on outputs rather than inventing parameter guidance.
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?
Names a concrete resource (every upstream) and enumerates exactly what is reported: status, latency, error counts, breaker state — plus a second, separately described output (context-savings comparison of direct-connection tokens vs. tokens actually spent). No sibling tool overlaps with health/savings reporting, so an agent can identify it unambiguously.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'call this to check upstream health or see token savings', but the description never states when to prefer it over the sibling listing tools (list_servers, list_tools) that also reveal configuration state. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no explicit triggering condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.