indec_statusChecks INDEC API configuration: token presence, base URL, and whether the public BETA spec changed versus the server’s version—no token needed.
Informa si hay token configurado, la URL base y si el spec público de la API del INDEC cambió respecto del que usa este servidor (la API está en BETA). No requiere token.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real context: no token is needed, the API is in BETA, and the tool compares the live public spec against the server's pinned version — behavior an agent could not infer from the annotations.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the three reported facts before the caveats. The nested parenthetical about BETA status interrupts the flow slightly, but nothing is redundant.
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, the description must convey what comes back, and it does enumerate the three return facets (token present, base URL, spec-drift flag). It does not describe the response shape or the drift field's type, a minor gap for a simple diagnostic tool.
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 beyond confirming no token is required. 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 verb and resource: reports token configuration, base URL, and whether the public INDEC API spec has drifted from the one this server uses. The diagnostic/status purpose is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the data-query siblings, though no sibling is named 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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is a health/preflight check, but the description never says when to call it (e.g. before querying, on auth errors) or when not to. The 'No requiere token' note hints it is safe to call unauthenticated, which is useful but not a usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.