Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Breezeway MCP

Breezeway MCP

by cotlet-connect
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

breezeway_status

Verify that your Cotlet.dev account, available credits, and Breezeway connection are ready before running task operations.

Instructions

Check that your Cotlet.dev account and Breezeway are ready: account, credits and Breezeway connection.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "breezeway_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose the three things verified (account, credits, connection), which hints that it is a non-mutating readiness probe. However it never states read-only/side-effect behavior explicitly, nor what it reports when a check fails, so the safety and result profile remain inferred.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Minor redundancy: "account" is restated in the colon list right after "Cotlet.dev account," which slightly muddies what the three checks actually are.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a trivial zero-parameter probe the description covers the subject of the check, which is the main thing. Because there is no output schema, it should say roughly what the agent gets back (a ready/not-ready signal, which of the three checks failed) — that gap matters for interpreting results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly implies a parameterless call, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline for a 0-parameter tool applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("Check") and the concrete resources being verified (Cotlet.dev account, credits, Breezeway connection). An agent can tell this is a readiness/preflight check rather than an action, though the description never contrasts it with the action siblings (breezeway_open, breezeway_click, etc.).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by "are ready" — presumably a preflight check before other Breezeway operations — but the description never says when to call it, whether it is required first, or what to do on failure. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools