rappi_connection_statusCheck Rappi session status and token presence locally to confirm connection and diagnose authentication problems before using other tools.
Local doctor: token present, mutations off by default, unofficial consumer surface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds 'token present' (likely a check for authentication) and 'mutations off by default,' but these are partially redundant with the annotations and still vague. It does not disclose what the tool returns, how it behaves on success/failure, or any side effects. The description adds marginal value beyond the annotations.
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 extremely brief, but it is not concise in a helpful way. It consists of three cryptic fragments that convey little clear meaning. It lacks a front-loaded, clear statement of purpose. The brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description still leaves major gaps: it does not explain what kind of status information is returned, what 'local doctor' means, or how it relates to the many sibling tools. An agent would be uncertain about the tool's exact capabilities and output.
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%, but the only parameter (response_format) is optional with an enum and default, so the schema alone fully documents it. The description does not mention the parameter at all and adds no semantic context. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not, so a score of 2 is appropriate.
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 is highly cryptic: 'Local doctor: token present, mutations off by default, unofficial consumer surface.' It never explicitly states that this tool checks the connection status or health of the Rappi integration. The title hints at 'connection status' but the description itself does not provide a clear verb+resource. The mention of 'token present' suggests a diagnostic check, but it's vague and not actionable for an agent.
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 use this tool versus siblings like rappi_capabilities or rappi_privacy_audit. The description does not mention any scenario, prerequisite, or alternative. It only gives obscure facts ('mutations off by default') without explaining how they relate to selection criteria. An agent has little basis to decide to call this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.