Checks z/OSMF connectivity, authentication, and basic API availability for a named or default environment to confirm access before mainframe operations.
Verify z/OSMF connectivity, authentication, and basic API availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| environment | No | Named target environment (see list_environments), e.g. "dev", "prod". Omit to use the server default. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that authentication and basic API availability are checked, but it does not explain what the verification actually exercises, whether credentials are required, or what kind of result indicates success or failure.
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 that states the tool's purpose without filler or redundant restatement of the title.
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, single-optional-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it identifies what is verified and is safe to invoke repeatedly. The only minor gap is that it does not characterize the result or response shape, but the low complexity keeps this from being a significant omission.
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?
There is only one optional parameter, and the schema description coverage is 100%, including a reference to list_environments and the default behavior. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 gives a specific verb, 'Verify', and names the resource and checks: z/OSMF connectivity, authentication, and basic API availability. It is clearly distinct from siblings like system_health_summary or whoami, though it does not explicitly call out those distinctions.
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?
It does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it describe prerequisites, exclusions, or common workflows such as running it before submitting JCL. Usage is only implied by the word 'Verify'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.