Check the live health and configuration status of multiple LLM providers at once, enabling quick identification of issues.
Show manage multiple llm providers configuration / health.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether the tool is read-only, what 'health' or 'configuration' outputs look like, or whether 'manage' implies side effects. The ambiguous verb 'Show manage' actively obscures the safety profile.
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 appropriately short, but the phrasing is grammatically awkward ('Show manage') and the slash-separated 'configuration / health' reads as under-specified shorthand rather than clear prose. It is concise in length but not in clarity.
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?
Although the tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, the description still fails to clarify what a status result contains, whether the operation is safe, or how it relates to the sibling list/inspect/compare tools. A complete one-line description could easily have resolved these ambiguities.
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 has zero parameters and the empty input schema is fully covered, so there are no parameter gaps for the description to fill. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.
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 names a resource ('multiple llm providers configuration / health') but uses the confusing compound verb 'Show manage,' making it unclear whether this is a read-only status display or a management/mutation action. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like aigw_list or aigw_inspect, and the meaning of 'status' is left vague.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of aigw_list, aigw_inspect, or aigw_compare. The description does not state any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, so an agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.