Check data freshness and sync health before relying on answers; identify stale data, failed runs, or login issues.
When the data was last refreshed (per dataset), whether the last runs worked, and any login problem. Call this first if answers look stale or empty.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context about what the tool reports (last refresh time, run success, login problems) and that it is a diagnostic call. It does not contradict annotations and provides sufficient behavioral detail for a parameterless read-only tool.
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 is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool reports, and the second gives a precise usage trigger. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately actionable guidance, making it highly efficient.
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?
For a parameterless read-only status tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what information will be returned (data freshness, run success, login issues) and when to call it. There is no output schema, but the description adequately covers the expected content. No other context is needed for correct invocation.
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 there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It correctly omits any parameter details, which would be irrelevant.
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 explicitly states the tool's function: reporting when data was last refreshed per dataset, whether runs succeeded, and any login problems. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or retrieve data, and from the refresh tool which likely triggers a refresh. The verb 'call' and the specific information items make the purpose unambiguous.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first if answers look stale or empty.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, and implies it is a diagnostic step before trusting data. It also implicitly distinguishes it from refresh, which would be the action to take if sync is outdated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.