Check whether a specific cPanel feature, such as MySQL, PostgreSQL, cron, or SSL, is enabled for an account to verify availability before use.
Check if a specific feature is enabled for the account
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feature | Yes | Feature name to check (e.g., 'mysql', 'postgres', 'cron', 'ssl') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'check' implies a read-only operation, the description does not disclose any behavioral details such as return format (e.g., boolean), error handling for unknown features, or whether the tool has side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.
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 one sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, with no unnecessary details or repetition.
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?
The tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, but the description lacks information about the return value or behavior for edge cases. Given no output schema and minimal context, the description is minimally viable but does not go beyond the basics to fully round out the tool's behavior.
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 input schema already fully covers the single parameter ('feature') with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema_description_coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check if a specific feature is enabled for the account.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('feature enabled'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_features and other domain-specific tools. The purpose is unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage when one needs to verify a feature's enabled status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_features) or provide exclusions. It is left to the reader to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.