mcp_statusCheck which MCP servers are up, their available tools, and why any failed to start, to quickly identify and resolve connectivity issues.
Які сервери з mcp.json піднялись, які їхні інструменти доступні моделі і що не піднялось — з причиною.
| 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 provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states the output content categories: available servers, accessible tools, and failures with reasons. However, it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, nor describe output format, timeout, or network-check 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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys purpose and key output categories. Every part earns its place, and there is no redundant wording or 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?
For a no-parameter status tool, the description covers the essential return-value categories: successful servers, available tools, and failures with reasons. It does not describe exact output formatting, but given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, this is a minor gap rather than a critical 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 are zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description correctly focuses on the tool's behavior rather than parameters, and no parameter documentation is needed.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: it reports which MCP servers from mcp.json are up, which of their tools are available, and which failed with reasons. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling status tools like git_status and glm_status by naming the MCP server context 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?
The description implies the tool is used to check MCP server and tool availability, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It gives clear context but leaves the when-to-use decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.