classapp_statusCheck the current operating mode and privacy limits without a network request to verify offline configuration and data access boundaries.
Show mode and privacy limits without making a network request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds a substantive behavioral fact — it performs no network I/O, so it cannot confirm live connectivity or credentials. It does not say what 'mode' signifies or whether any local state is read, so not a 5.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it could have spent a few more words disambiguating 'mode' at little cost.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the no-network caveat is valuable. However, for a status tool an agent still cannot tell what 'mode' means, whether credentials/permissions are validated, or how this differs from simply retrying a sibling operation.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, local status read, with nothing to mis-specify.
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?
States a specific verb ('Show') and the two things returned (mode, privacy limits), and adds a distinguishing trait — no network request — which separates it from the list/search/read/download siblings. The word 'mode' is left ambiguous (connection mode? demo vs. live?), which keeps it from a 5.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The phrase 'without making a network request' faintly implies a cheap pre-flight check, but the agent must infer that itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.