Verify that your Roamer X session is active by checking sign-in status and confirming the API accepts your token.
Check that the Roamer X connection works (signed in, token accepted by the API).
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by unpacking what 'works' means ('signed in, token accepted by the API'), which tells the agent what failure conditions this surfaces. It does not describe the shape of a failed result, keeping it from a 5.
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?
One short sentence with the key qualifier (what 'works' means) placed immediately after the claim. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.
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 parameters, no output schema and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the definition is nearly complete for its complexity. The remaining gap is that it doesn't say what an agent receives on success versus failure (boolean, error, message), which matters for a pure diagnostic tool with no output schema.
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 description correctly does not invent parameter discussion.
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') and resource ('Roamer X connection') and parenthetically defines what a working connection means (signed in, token accepted by the API). That definition makes clear it is a diagnostic/health-check tool, implicitly distinct from the booking-oriented siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling, so 4 rather than 5.
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?
Use is only implied: an agent can infer this is a connectivity/auth pre-check, but the description never says when to call it (e.g. before other calls, on suspected auth failure) or what to do instead. No exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.