Report the registree server's status, the project it serves, and registry size to confirm the environment is ready for coding.
Report server status, the project it serves, and registry size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| root | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| registry_classes | Yes | ||
| registry_generated_at | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. 'Report' implies a read-only, non-mutating behavior, which is helpful, but it does not specify whether it hits a live endpoint, any error semantics, or output shape. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.
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?
A single sentence with a front-loaded verb and concise object list. There is no filler, and all three reported elements are enumerated efficiently.
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 zero parameters, the presence of an output schema, and the high-level nature of the report, the description is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke this tool. It covers the main informational content, and no missing detail would confuse a capable agent.
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 has zero properties, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It profitably defines what the tool reports (status, project, registry size) and thereby gives the agent meaningful context beyond the empty schema.
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 verb ('Report') with a concrete resource ('server') and specifies the exact output categories: status, project, and registry size. This distinguishes it unambiguously from the code-focused sibling tools such as get_signatures or list_duplicates.
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 intended use is implied—call this when you need server status, the associated project, or registry size—but no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer it over alternatives or what action it might precede. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or context cues beyond the obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.