Check whether the AppLedger scanning service is reachable or which scanners are installed locally. Get clear steps to fix anything missing.
Show whether the AppLedger scanning service is reachable (or, in local mode, which scanners are installed on this computer), and how to fix anything that is missing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the tool behaves differently in local mode (enumerates installed scanners) versus remote mode (probes service reachability), and it returns remediation guidance. It stops short of saying how the mode is determined or what the response looks like.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the primary outcome and parenthesizes the mode-specific variant. No filler, nothing redundant with the 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 zero-param tool with no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and it does: reachability status, enumerated local scanners, and fix guidance for anything missing. Enough for an agent to know what signals to expect and how to act on them.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. The description correctly describes a parameterless probe rather than implying hidden configuration options.
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?
Names a specific verb ("Show") and a concrete resource (reachability of the AppLedger scanning service, or installed scanners in local mode). The dual-mode framing is clear, but the description never distinguishes this tool from siblings like check_app or get_fix_prompt, so an agent can't route on the text alone.
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?
Implied usage as a diagnostic/preflight step ("how to fix anything that is missing") but no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of when a caller should prefer check_app or get_fix_prompt. The agent must infer placement in the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.