Get Crave MCP compatibility status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations by mentioning 'fail-closed capability blockers' and 'safe runtime versions,' which indicates that the tool reports restrictions or blockers rather than merely providing general information. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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

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

The description consists of two tight sentences. The first sentence front-loads the specific outputs, and the second sentence provides a clear usage directive. There is no padding or repetition of information already available in the schema or annotations.

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

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

With no input parameters, rich annotations, an output schema, and a description that states both outputs and appropriate use context, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and call this tool correctly. There is no missing invocation-relevant detail.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter-level explanation is unnecessary. With a 100% schema description coverage baseline and no parameters to document, the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter semantics.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns three specific pieces of information: safe runtime versions, a tool-policy digest, and fail-closed capability blockers. It is clear about the tool's resource and purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_integration_guide or the various readiness-check tools.

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

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

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: before project generation or long-running automation. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the stated context is clear and actionable.

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