Checks connectivity to the OwnTracks Recorder and displays its active configuration without exposing secrets, helping verify location data availability.
Check the connection to the OwnTracks Recorder and show the active configuration (no secrets).
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioral detail is '(no secrets)', which usefully tells the agent the configuration output is safe to surface, but it omits failure/error semantics and response shape.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the primary action and appends the configuration detail with no waste. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, annotations cover the safety profile, and there are no parameters. The only mild gap is what a 'connection check' failure communicates, but that is reasonably delegated to the output schema.
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, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing for the description to clarify, and the 100% schema coverage confirms no semantic gaps.
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 ('Check the connection') and resource ('OwnTracks Recorder') plus a secondary action of showing active configuration. It is clearly distinct from the location-oriented siblings (list_devices, get_last_location, etc.), though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 diagnostic framing implies this is used to verify recorder connectivity or inspect current configuration, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.