Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Iris Works MCP Server

Iris Works MCP Server

by cotlet-connect
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

iris_works_status

Verify your Cotlet.dev account and Iris Works connection are ready, including available credits, before managing clients, sessions, contracts, or invoices.

Instructions

Check that your Cotlet.dev account and Iris Works are ready: account, credits and Iris Works 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": "iris_works_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 does add useful scope by naming what is verified (account, credits, connection), but it never states that the call is read-only/side-effect free, what happens when a check fails (error vs. degraded result), 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

One front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the enumerated checks after the colon; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple zero-argument diagnostic this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say what a 'ready' result looks like and whether failures surface as an error or as content the agent must interpret. That omission leaves a real gap for an agent deciding how to react to the result.

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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys; the baseline for a parameterless 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Check') and a specific subject (Cotlet.dev account and Iris Works readiness), then enumerates the three things verified: account, credits and connection. That is clear enough to distinguish it from the action siblings (click, type, read, open, close), though it never explicitly says how it differs from iris_works_guide.

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: the word 'ready' suggests a pre-flight/health check performed before the other Iris Works actions. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement, so the agent must infer that this should be called first.

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