kbo_data_statusCheck which KBO CSV files are loaded and their row counts. Detect column issues and verify expected file names before querying player or team stats.
Show which KBO CSV files are loaded, their row counts, any column problems, and the expected file names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the substance of what is surfaced (row counts, column problems, expected names), but an output schema already exists to carry return details, so the marginal behavioral value is modest.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the reported facets without filler. Every clause earns its place.
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, read-only diagnostic whose return shape is defined by an output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to know. Only the trigger conditions for calling it are absent, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The 100% schema coverage and empty properties object leave no semantic gap.
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 (show) and a precisely scoped resource (KBO CSV file load status), enumerating the facets reported: loaded files, row counts, column problems, expected names. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which deal with player stats, leaderboards, and standings, not data-file diagnostics.
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 a diagnostic use case but never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives or what condition triggers it (e.g., before running a stats query to verify data is present). Usage is inferable from the content but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.