CoachingPortal MCP Server

coachingportal_status

Verify Cotlet.dev account readiness, available credits, and the CoachingPortal connection before starting coaching workflows.

Instructions

Check that your Cotlet.dev account and CoachingPortal are ready: account, credits and CoachingPortal 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": "coachingportal_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully enumerates the three things verified (account, credits, connection), but does not state that the operation is read-only and side-effect free, nor what a failing or partially-ready result looks like, which matters for a status tool with no output schema.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Minor redundancy: 'account' is stated twice ('your Cotlet.dev account ... ready: account, credits and ...'), which slightly blurs the three-part check list.

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 zero-parameter, low-risk readiness check the description is mostly sufficient, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves the agent guessing about the result shape and what 'not ready' means in practice. One clause covering the outcome would close the gap.

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 appropriately adds no parameter guidance, matching the baseline for param-free tools. The colon-separated list of checks maps to the three readiness dimensions an agent should reason about, even though none are inputs.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Check') and a specific object of that check: Cotlet.dev account readiness, credits, and the CoachingPortal connection. That clearly separates it from the sibling tools (click/close/open/read/type), which are page-interaction actions, without needing to name them.

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: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight or diagnostic check to run before or after the interaction tools, but the description never states when to call it versus going straight to coachingportal_open or coachingportal_read. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or guidance on what to do when the check fails.

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

Deploy Server