beook_statusVerify whether beook is running and reachable, and identify which books or exercises are currently open before interacting with the app.
Check whether beook is running and reachable, and which books/exercises are currently open.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 word "Check" implies a read-only status operation, and the description says what is reported, but it does not describe output format, failure behavior when beook is unreachable, or whether any side effects occur.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It immediately states the core check and then the additional status information returned.
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 zero-parameter status tool, the description is nearly complete: it says what is checked and what open state is reported. However, because there is no output schema, it could more explicitly describe the return shape or what an unreachable/not-running state looks like.
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 the schema is empty and there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly does not invent parameter details.
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 states a specific check of whether beook is running and reachable, plus which books/exercises are currently open. This is distinct from sibling tools such as beook_list_books, beook_open_exercise, and beook_read_exercise because it reports current status rather than listing or manipulating content.
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 when to use it—when you need to verify beook connectivity or see what is currently open—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It never says, for example, to use beook_launch when beook is not running or to use list tools for broader enumeration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.