server_statusReports server version, transport, and uptime, and optionally whether Yahoo was last reached and how long ago without querying Yahoo again.
Report this server's version, transport and uptime.
With details, also whether its last request reached Yahoo and how
long ago, without asking Yahoo again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| details | No | Also report whether Yahoo answered, and when. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds a genuinely non-obvious trait: the `details` mode reports cached contact info 'without asking Yahoo again', so the agent knows it triggers no network traffic. It stops short of describing output shape or what 'transport' resolves to, but the important side-effect profile is disclosed.
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, with the core report contents front-loaded and the optional flag's effect in the second sentence. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.
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 one-optional-param, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is reported and how `details` augments it. Only the concrete return format of 'transport' is left unspecified, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single boolean is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description earns the bump by explaining the *cost* semantics of the flag ('without asking Yahoo again') — that it reads last-known state rather than performing a live check, which the schema does not say.
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 verb and resource ('Report this server's version, transport and uptime') and enumerates exactly which fields come back. It is unmistakably a server-diagnostic tool, cleanly delineated from all the Yahoo-data siblings, none of which touch server state.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs to know server/environment health, and that `details` is for checking last-Yahoo-contact. There is no explicit 'use when X, not when Y' statement, though no sibling overlaps so the risk of misrouting is low.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.