Check coverage and safe configuration of legal source APIs. Optionally probe a provider with a public query to verify access and ensure reliable data retrieval.
Read coverage and safe setup guidance. probe=true explicitly tests one API with a public query and fetch (default: Légifrance); consumes provider quota.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| probe | No | ||
| source_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about probe=true consuming provider quota and the default Légifrance API, which annotations alone would not convey. It does not contradict 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 two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and adds the probe nuance without redundancy. 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?
The purpose and probe behavior are clear, but the tool has no output schema so the description should clarify what 'coverage and safe setup guidance' returns. Also, source_id is not explained, leaving the tool incomplete for an agent needing to call it with a specific source.
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 must compensate. It explains the probe parameter (tests an API with a public query/fetch and consumes quota), but provides no meaning for source_id, leaving a key parameter undocumented. This is a significant gap.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read coverage and safe setup guidance') and elaborates with the probe behavior (tests one API with a public query and fetch). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search or fetch by focusing on status/coverage rather than data retrieval.
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?
It conveys that the tool is for reading status and setup guidance, and the probe option is explicitly explained. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of fully explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.