living_body_connection_statusCheck ready/not-ready status of locally detected wellness connectors without invoking vendor APIs or child tools. Obtain a snapshot to verify connector availability for your body data layer.
Ready/not-ready snapshot of local connector detection without calling vendor APIs or child data tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that this tool does not call vendor APIs or child data tools, which is a behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide.
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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key constraint. No redundant information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and absence of output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it omits the response format parameter and does not explain return format, which would be helpful.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. However, it does not mention the single parameter 'response_format' or its allowed values, leaving the agent to infer it from the schema alone. The description adds no semantic value for parameters.
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 returns a ready/not-ready snapshot of local connector detection, avoiding vendor APIs or child data tools. It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'living_body_status' or 'living_body_health_check'.
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 implies usage for quick status checks without external calls, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.