canli-validation-mcp

Service status

service_status

Read-only

Check if the validation API is up and view its quotas; no key required. Use after a timeout before resubmitting.

Instructions

Whether the validation API is up, with its quotas; check after a timeout before resubmitting. No key. This verdict is about the series exactly as submitted. The service never saw the data source, its costs, survivorship, or any lookahead in how the series was built.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`error`	No
`limits`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.13.0Oct 7, 2026

removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -{}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / data / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -{}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / error / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": {},
-    "properties": {},
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "properties": {},
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.10.1Sep 30, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "data.store_reachable, data.quotas and, when available, data.usage for this key.",
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "additionalProperties": {},
+          "properties": {},
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "limits": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.5.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — 'No key' (no auth required) and that quotas are returned. But the trailing sentences about the service never seeing data source, costs, survivorship or lookahead describe a validation verdict, not a health check, adding confusion rather than behavioral clarity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded well in the first clause, but two of the three sentences are off-topic content that does not describe this status tool at all. For a zero-parameter health check, those sentences fail to earn their place and actively dilute the definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values (including quotas) need not be explained, and purpose, timing and auth are covered. The definition is adequate but is undermined by the irrelevant series-validation disclaimer, leaving the agent with a slightly muddled picture of what this endpoint actually reports.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The only parameter-adjacent statement, 'No key', usefully confirms no credential input is expected, matching the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening clause states a specific resource and condition — 'Whether the validation API is up, with its quotas' — which cleanly separates it from the validation siblings (audit_backtest, stress_test, etc.). However, the remaining sentences drift into what looks like boilerplate about validating a series, which does not describe a status endpoint and muddies the otherwise clear purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'check after a timeout before resubmitting' gives an explicit triggering condition for calling this tool, and 'No key' removes an auth question. No alternative tools are named, but the when-to-use context is concrete enough that an agent knows exactly when to reach for this over the validation tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.