ninenine_connection_statusDiagnose your 99Pop and 99Moto API connection by checking token presence and fail-closed mutation settings. Get markdown or JSON status reports to confirm your local setup is safe for ride requests.
Local doctor: token present, mutations off by default, unofficial passenger 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 and idempotent behavior, but the description adds useful context: token presence, mutations being off by default, and the unofficial nature of the passenger surface. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what state the status reports and what safety assumptions hold.
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 extrely concise and free of redundant words, but the telegraphic style relies on unexplained jargon such as 'Local doctor' and 'unofficial passenger surface.' It is short but not as clear as it could be.
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 a single optional parameter, the description gives reasonable context about token state and mutation safety. Yet it never explicitly states the return shape or the exact meaning of 'connection status,' leaving room for misinterpretation about what the agent will actually recieve.
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_description_coverAge is 0%, and the description does not mention the sole parameter 'response_format' at all. However, the schema itself fully constrains the parameter with an enum and default, so the practical gap is small; still, the description contributes no parameter meaning.
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 does not state a direct verb or explicit 'returns connection status'; it relies on the tool name and cryptic fragments like 'Local doctor' and 'unofficial passenger surface.' It hints at useful status dimensions—token presence and mutation configuration—but the action and resource are only implicit.
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 guidance on when to call this tool versus siblings such as ninenine_capabilities or ninene_privacy_audit. The phrase 'Local doctor' implies a diagnostic use case, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.