MCP Server Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating it 'never modifies anything' and is 'purely informational'. It also adds non-obvious behavior: returning actionable configuration fixes, handling multi-database mode, and disclosing exact return fields.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a compact 'When to use' list and a concise return-value summary. Each section adds new information without redundant filler.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description fully covers invocation context, return shape, error behavior, and read-only guarantees. An agent has everything needed to select and interpret this tool correctly.

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 the input schema carries no burden and the baseline is 4. The description still adds value by naming the return fields status, database, mode, and readonly, which compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 reports MCP server readiness, the connected database, and configuration mode. It explicitly frames this as server-level health/configuration status, which distinguishes it from database-specific siblings like db_health and db_overview.

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 scenarios for when to use the tool: at session start, after connection errors, or when asked about server configuration. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops just short of full exclusionary guidance.

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