Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vaultre-mcp

vaultre-mcp

by cotlet-connect
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

vaultre_status

Verify that your Cotlet.dev account, credits, and VaultRE connection are ready before running property, contact, or enquiry commands.

Instructions

Check that your Cotlet.dev account and VaultRE are ready: account, credits and VaultRE 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": "vaultre_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 are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a side-effect-free read, whether it consumes credits, whether it errors or returns status flags on a failed connection, or what a partial-readiness result looks like — the important behavioral facts for a diagnostic tool.

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 the purpose stated first and the checked items listed after the colon. It is slightly redundant, saying "account" twice and repeating "VaultRE" twice, but nothing is wasted at length.

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 diagnostic with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the agent learns from the result — e.g. whether failures surface as errors or as field values. It lists what is checked but not how the outcome is reported, leaving a real gap for a check tool.

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 disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The sentence does correctly convey that no inputs are needed to scope the check.

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 gives a specific verb ("Check") and enumerates the resources examined: Cotlet.dev account, credits, and the VaultRE connection. That is enough to separate it from the sibling tools (click, open, read, type), which are browser interactions, though the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

The phrase "are ready" implies a pre-flight/precondition check, so an agent can infer this is used before attempting VaultRE operations. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of what to do if the check fails, and no named alternative.

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