Check whether the schema catalog is loaded, how many objects it holds, the database dialect, and audit-log counts. No arguments; safe to call anytime.
Server status: whether the catalog is loaded, how many objects it holds, the database dialect, and audit-log counts. Takes no arguments; safe to call any time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's additions ("takes no arguments", "safe to call any time") largely restate that, and the rest is a list of returned values that the existing output schema already documents.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its payload, followed by the invocation constraint. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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-argument diagnostic, the description plus annotations plus an output schema cover everything an agent needs: what it reports, that it is safe and idempotent, and that no inputs are required.
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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's "takes no arguments" is consistent with the empty schema and removes any doubt about required inputs.
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?
States a specific resource (server status) and enumerates exactly what it reports: catalog load state, object count, database dialect, and audit-log counts. No sibling tool (answer, run_query, list_objects, refresh_catalog, describe_object, select_schema) overlaps with this diagnostic role, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.
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?
"Safe to call any time" gives a clear usage context for a diagnostic tool and implicitly invites pre-flight checks before other operations. It does not, however, name a specific alternative or state exclusions, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.