Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
jane-app-mcp

jane-app-mcp

by cotlet-connect
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

jane_app_status

Verifies your Cotlet.dev account, credits, and Jane App connection are ready before AI agents run tasks.

Instructions

Check that your Cotlet.dev account and Jane App are ready: account, credits and Jane App 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": "jane_app_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only enumerates the three things inspected. It does not say whether a failed check raises an error or returns a not-ready status, whether calling it has side effects or auth requirements, or how the result should be interpreted before invoking action tools.

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 preamble. The colon list slightly repeats the opening phrase ("account" and "Jane App" appear twice), which is minor redundancy rather than wasted structure.

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 status tool this covers what is inspected, which is the core need. However, with no output schema, the description should say what a check result looks like and what an agent should do when a check fails, and it says neither.

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 no parameter meaning to add; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about 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?

States a specific verb ("Check") and a specific resource set (Cotlet.dev account, credits, Jane App connection readiness). That is clearly distinguishable from the sibling action tools (click/close/open/read/type), which perform operations rather than report readiness, though the description never names a sibling to route against.

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?

"Check that ... are ready" implies this is a preflight/readiness call before using the action tools, but that is only implied. There is no explicit statement of when to call it (e.g., before starting a session) and no statement of when it is unnecessary.

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