placetel_get_ai_statusRetrieve the Placetel AI integration status to verify availability and configuration. Returns read-only status details in markdown or JSON for monitoring and diagnostics.
AI integration status. (GET /ai/status) Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response_format | No | Output format: 'markdown' (human-readable, default) or 'json' (machine-readable). | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The 'Read-only' tag merely restates readOnlyHint=true and adds nothing beyond the annotations, which already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. No added context about what the status object contains, whether an unconfigured integration returns an error or empty result, or any auth/scope requirement.
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?
Two short fragments, front-loaded and waste-free. The endpoint parenthetical is marginally useful for traceability but is not agent-relevant; nothing is bloated.
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 zero-required-param read with full annotation coverage, the safety profile is clear. But there is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what the 'status' response conveys — and it says nothing about that.
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?
Only one optional parameter (response_format) with an enum and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.
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 names the resource (AI integration status) and exposes the underlying endpoint (GET /ai/status), which implies a read. However, it largely restates the tool title verbatim and gives no indication of what 'status' covers (connected/disconnected, provider, last sync) or how it differs from sibling integration tools like placetel_get_microsoft_teams_integration.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With dozens of sibling getters in the namespace, the agent is left to infer selection purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.