Run the open activity's connectivity tests and return current completion status and score.
Run the open activity's connectivity tests and return them with the current completion and score, like Check Results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| connectivity | Yes | ||
| connectivity_results | Yes | One line per connectivity test, as Packet Tracer reports it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, and 'Run ... tests' is consistent with a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, so no contradiction. The description adds that it returns current completion and score, but omits whether running the tests mutates simulation state or has prerequisites.
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 front-loaded sentence with the action and its outcome stated immediately; no padding. The only soft spot is the trailing UI analogy, which is mildly wasteful for an agent reader.
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?
A zero-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations needs little, and the description covers the action and the returned values. However, in an activity/grading context it should state prerequisites (activity open/unlocked) or how the result relates to activity_status, which it leaves out.
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 per the rubric baseline is 4. The description correctly never invents parameter detail, and the empty schema leaves nothing to document.
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?
Specific verb (Run) plus resource (the open activity's connectivity tests) with a clear statement of what is returned (completion and score), which separates it from status-style siblings like activity_status. The trailing 'like Check Results' is a UI reference that adds little for an agent but doesn't obscure the purpose.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance. With siblings such as activity_status, activity_instructions, and unlock_activity, the description never says whether this is a graded check, whether the activity must be open/unlocked first, or how it differs from simply reading activity_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.