Check server readiness for workflow building by verifying knowledge base access, output and read directories, and configured limits.
Report whether the server is ready: knowledge base, output and read directories, limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what is checked (knowledge base, directories, limits) and the word 'Report' implies a read-only operation, but it omits explicit confirmation of no side effects, auth requirements, and failure behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence: purpose first, then a colon list of the checked subsystems. No redundant restatement of the tool name or schema, and every phrase adds 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?
An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, and a 0-param read-only status tool is simple. The description states the scope of the readiness check, though it could be slightly more complete about when a degraded result matters.
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 schema defines zero parameters, and the scoring baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. There is no parameter syntax the description could add, and it correctly does not invent any.
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 ('Report') and a specific subject ('whether the server is ready'), then itemizes what readiness covers: knowledge base, output/read directories, and limits. This clearly distinguishes it from the workflow_* siblings, which operate on workflows rather than 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?
The description says what is reported but never states when to call this tool, preconditions, or how it relates to alternatives like workflow_inspect. Any 'check readiness before running workflows' guidance must be inferred entirely by the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.