Check whether your cached Perchance user key remains valid and whether the solver is ready, so you can avoid failed image generation requests.
Check if cached userKey is valid and solver status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Check') and mentions 'cached' and 'solver status', which adds some context. However, it does not state whether the check has side effects, whether it requires any preconditions, or how errors are handled. The information is minimal but not misleading.
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 sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, an output schema exists, and it is a straightforward status check), the description is adequately complete. The output schema covers return details, and the description conveys the essential function. It lacks any usage context, but that is already penalized in usage_guidelines.
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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to add anything. Per the calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 states a clear action ('Check') and a specific resource ('cached userKey' and 'solver status'). It is not a tautology and is distinct from the sibling tools, which involve style listing, generator info, ad code, and generation operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the siblings. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or situations where this check would be preferable to other tools. The description simply states what it does, leaving usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.