Checks configuration and local generation prerequisites without exposing credentials, helping you diagnose setup issues before generating user docs with WTFM.
Check configuration and local generation prerequisites without exposing credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond that: it operates 'without exposing credentials'. It says nothing about what prerequisites are inspected, whether it fails fast, or what a failure looks like.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the credential-safety clause tagged on without padding. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.
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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and with zero parameters there is no schema gap to fill. The remaining shortfall is purely the absent when-to-use guidance relative to its many diagnostic/init siblings.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No param-level information is required or missing.
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 ('Check') and two concrete resources ('configuration and local generation prerequisites'), so an agent can tell it apart from publish/init siblings. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from the nearest neighbours such as supportpages_get_capabilities or supportpages_get_local_plan.
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?
No statement of when to run this versus supportpages_init, supportpages_get_capabilities, or supportpages_get_local_plan. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a pre-flight diagnostic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.