clickbus_connection_statusVerify ClickBus authentication and see if booking or cancellation actions are currently enabled. Get a quick status report in Markdown or JSON.
Local doctor: token present, mutations off by default, unofficial ClickBus consumer surface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: it is a local/unofficial surface and it reports token presence and mutation defaults. This is additive and does not contradict the annotations, though it omits what the response actually contains.
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 compact and front-loaded, but it reads as telegraphic fragments rather than clear prose. The 'Local doctor' metaphor and the list of states are efficient in length yet sacrifice clarity without being fully redundant.
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 output schema and no return-value explanation, the description leaves the agent guessing about the actual response shape and how response_format affects results. The safety profile is covered by annotations, but the operational contract of the tool is incomplete.
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 single parameter response_format is self-explanatory through its enum and default in the schema, but the tool description adds nothing about it. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate for parameter meaning; it does not.
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 conveys that this is a local, read-only diagnostic surface for ClickBus, reporting token presence and mutation defaults. However, it never uses an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'checks', relying on the 'Local doctor' metaphor and the tool title for the actual purpose.
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?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as clickbus_capabilities, clickbus_privacy_audit, or clickbus_search_places. The phrase 'mutations off by default' hints at a safe diagnostic tool, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.