mca_statusCheck live availability of MCA21 V3 company and director services. Returns current state, uptime, and last incident to answer 'is MCA down'.
Live availability of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA21 V3) company and director services, measured from QorpIQ's own traffic: state, uptime and last incident. Use for "is MCA down", "MCA site not working".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful disclosure beyond that: the measurement is derived from QorpIQ's own traffic, which tells the agent this is an observational signal, not an official MCA status feed.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope before the trigger phrases. The two quoted example queries are near-duplicates of each other and slightly pad the length, but nothing is wasted overall.
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 output schema, no parameters, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the returned signal (state, uptime, last incident) and its data source. It could say a bit more about freshness or confidence of the measurement, but for a zero-input status check this is close to complete.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description needs to explain inputs, and none of its content is spent redundantly on them.
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?
Names a specific resource (live availability of MCA21 V3 company and director services) and enumerates what it reports: state, uptime, last incident. This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling lookup/search tools, which return company or director data rather than service health.
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?
Provides concrete trigger phrases ("is MCA down", "MCA site not working") that map directly to user intent, which gives clear context for invocation. It does not, however, name any alternative or exclusion, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.