Review the current search strategy and provider status. See which providers are enabled, have API keys, and are in the active fallback chain.
Read-only status: effective strategy and settings, plus which providers are enabled, have API keys and are part of the active search chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly declares the operation is read-only and enumerates the information included, which is the key behavioral trait for a parameterless status tool. It does not discuss failure behavior or auth, but that is less critical for a read-only status endpoint.
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 entire description is one sentence, front-loaded with 'Read-only status' and followed by a compact but precise enumeration of what the status includes. Every clause earns its place; there is no 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 tool, the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs: the operation is read-only, and the list of reported items is explicit. Since there is no output schema, a slightly more detailed return-format hint would improve completeness, but it is not required to call the 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 and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully defines inputs; the baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying what the returned status covers, though no parameter-level explanation is needed.
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 names the resource (provider status) and specifies exactly what it reports: effective strategy/settings, enabled providers, API-key presence, and active search chain membership. The 'read-only status' framing clearly distinguishes it from the sibling web_search tool, which performs searches.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is obviously for checking provider/strategy status, and web_search is for searching. However, the description never explicitly says 'use this when you need to inspect configuration' or contrasts it with web_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.