check_availabilityRetrieve an AI consultant’s current availability status, last-updated date, time zone, and what they are open to; use it as a status note, not a booking calendar.
Current availability status, as he last set it, with the date it was updated, what he is open to and his time zone. A status note, not a booking calendar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that the value is user-set ('as he last set it'), carries its own last-updated timestamp, and is a status note rather than a live calendar. This staleness/freshness framing is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations can't express.
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 zero filler, front-loaded with what the caller receives and finished with the key scope caveat. Every clause (status, date, openness, time zone, not-a-calendar) carries distinct information.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does so field-by-field. A simple zero-arg read-only tool needs little more; only the absence of sibling context keeps it from a 5.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb+resource — returns the current availability status — and enumerates the contents (status, update date, what he's open to, time zone). The closing line 'A status note, not a booking calendar' sharply warns what it isn't, but it never mentions how it differs from siblings like get_profile or how_to_hire, which is the remaining gap.
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: the 'not a booking calendar' exclusion tells an agent this is not for scheduling, which is useful negative scope. However, no positive 'use this when…' signal or named alternative (e.g., get_profile for broader bio data) is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.