ras_pub_get_statusChecks publishing service health to verify the agent is operational and detect pending changes. Use it to diagnose why published resources are unavailable.
Overall publishing service status and health. Returns whether the publishing agent is operational and any pending changes. Use this to verify publishing is functioning or diagnose why resources are unavailable.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds what the response conceptually contains (operational flag, pending changes) but says nothing about auth requirements, staleness of the status data, or refresh behavior.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool reports and followed by when to use it. No filler.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must cover return values, and it does so at a summary level ('operational' plus 'pending changes'). Sufficient to call correctly for a parameterless status endpoint, though finer detail on the return shape is absent.
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.
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 resource ('publishing service status and health') and what it returns ('whether the publishing agent is operational and any pending changes'). It is distinguishable from siblings like ras_pub_get_rds_apps or ras_pub_get_folders, which enumerate items rather than report service health, though it does not name them explicitly.
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?
Gives two concrete use cases: verifying publishing is functioning, and diagnosing why resources are unavailable. Clear context, but no explicit exclusions or named alternative tools for those diagnostics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.