Initiate a developer tooling command such as tests or linters, then receive compact, grouped error summaries to reduce context waste during debugging.
Unavailable: signal-mcp is not configured for this project. Call it to see why.
| 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 present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is unavailable due to missing configuration and that calling it will surface the reason, but it does not say whether the call returns an error, a message, or configuration details. This is partial transparency at best.
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 sentence with the key status front-loaded: 'Unavailable'. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding, and there is no fluff or redundant restatement 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?
For a zero-parameter stub tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it tells the agent the tool is not configured and directs it to call for the reason. However, with no output schema, the agent is left guessing what the call will return. The lack of sibling differentiation is also noticeable, though the unavailability statement reduces that need.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and nothing here is missing in that regard.
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 identifies this as a diagnostic stub: signal-mcp is not configured and calling it reveals why. This is more specific than the bare name and not a tautology, but it never states what the tool actually does or what a successful invocation accomplishes. The purpose is implied rather than clearly defined.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use start_check versus siblings like start_checks or run_check. The sentence implies the only reason to call it is to discover why it is unavailable, but it provides no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives. This is below the minimum viable level of usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.