sas_statusShows live versus synthetic offline mode, configuration, and limits without a network request; use it to check setup before accessing authorized SAS materials.
Show live versus synthetic offline mode, configuration and limits without a network request. Live mode does not itself prove provider access.
| 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 real context by noting it performs no network request and clarifying that 'live mode does not itself prove provider access' — a caveat that prevents an agent from over-trusting the result. It stops short of describing the returned structure, but an output schema exists.
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?
Two tight sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the caveat second; every clause carries information and there is no filler.
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 an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields; it covers what the tool reports and the important interpretation caveat. The only gap is guidance on acting on the result, which is a minor omission for a status tool.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-wise for the description to compensate for.
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 and resource ('Show live versus synthetic offline mode, configuration and limits'), making it clearly distinct from the sibling search/download/availability tools. It is clear what the tool reports, though it is somewhat compressed into a single clause.
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 'without a network request' phrase implies a cheap pre-flight/diagnostic check, but the description never says explicitly when to call it (e.g. before other sas_* calls) or what to do based on the result. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.