ze_connection_statusVerify Zé Delivery connection health: checks token presence and confirms mutations are disabled by default, ensuring safe read-only access.
Local doctor: token present, mutations off by default, unofficial Zé Delivery GraphQL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context with 'token present', 'mutations off by default', and the 'unofficial' warning, all of which are consistent with the annotations. However, it does not explain what the tool actually returns or any side effects beyond those hints.
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 very short, with no filler or redundant restatements of the title. The telegraphic style is compact, though the 'Local doctor' metaphor is ambiguous.
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 tool with one optional parameter and strong read-only annotations, the description is nearly sufficient for a basic call. But it leaves the output format and exact semantics ('Local doctor', what 'mutations off by default' means for the return value) underspecified.
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%, so the description needed to explain the 'response_format' parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all; the schema's enum/default are self-explanatory, but the description adds no parameter-specific 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 uses the metaphor 'Local doctor' and lists status dimensions ('token present', 'mutations off by default', 'unofficial Zé Delivery GraphQL'), so it suggests a diagnostic/status tool, but it never states a specific verb such as 'checks' or 'returns'. It also does not differentiate itself from sibling diagnostic tools like ze_capabilities or ze_privacy_audit.
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 as opposed to ze_capabilities, ze_privacy_audit, or ze_logout. No prerequisites such as 'call after authentication' or conditions for selecting response_format are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.