Verify connectivity to a remote server using stored credentials before deployment. Specify a project and optional environment to confirm access without deploying.
Test connectivity to a remote server target using stored credentials without deploying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | The name of the project to test | |
| environment | No | Target environment (default: production) | production |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely new facts: connections use stored credentials (no auth flow needed) and no deployment is performed, which is exactly the context an agent needs to trust it as a dry-run check.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the non-deploying, credential-using nature is stated immediately.
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 two-parameter read-only probe with rich annotations, most of what's needed is present. However, there is no output schema and the description never says what a test returns (pass/fail, error detail, latency), which is the key cognitive gap for a connectivity test 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both `project` and `environment` are already documented with defaults. The description adds no syntax, format, or environment-name conventions beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names a specific verb (test connectivity) and resource (remote server target), and the phrase 'without deploying' implicitly separates it from the sibling deploy_project. It stops short of naming any sibling tool explicitly, so differentiation is somewhat inferential.
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?
'Without deploying' hints at when to prefer this over deploy_project, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, when to run it (pre-deploy validation?), or what to do with the result. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.