Check fleet health, node availability, loaded models, routing previews, token savings, and pending benchmark or setup actions.
Nodes, health, loaded models, routing preview per category, token savings and whether a benchmark or the first setup is due.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful detail about what the status payload contains, but it does not disclose any deeper behavior such as data freshness, pagination, or what 'due' exactly triggers. It does not contradict the annotation.
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 compact sentence with no filler. Every item in the list adds information about what the status report contains, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded for quick scanning.
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-parameter, read-only status tool, the description covers the main result areas adequately, including the distinguishing 'benchmark or first setup due' indicators. It does not describe the return format, but given the simple nature and the annotation coverage, the agent has enough to call and interpret the tool.
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 already fully documents invocation with an empty object. With 100% schema coverage and no parameters to explain, the description is not required to add parameter detail; the baseline 4 applies.
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 is a verbless noun phrase, but it names the resource (fleet status) and precisely enumerates its contents: nodes, health, loaded models, routing preview, token savings, and due flags. This is far from a tautology and makes the tool's scope clear, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like fleet_nodes or fleet_usage.
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 call fleet_status instead of fleet_nodes, fleet_usage, or fleet_bench. The listed contents imply an overview-style tool, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.