Retrieve the connection status and last update timestamp to confirm whether a financial data source is active and current.
Estado e data de atualização do Item configurado.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| meta | Yes | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| pagination | Yes |
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=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns status and update date, which is useful context but does not disclose anything beyond that, such as rate limits or error behavior. The description is consistent with annotations and adds minimal value.
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 extremely concise, a single phrase, and directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. This is an example of appropriate minimalism for a simple read-only tool.
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 tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema. The description explains what it returns (status and update date), which is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose. It does not over-explain or miss critical details for this level of complexity.
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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly omits any. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.
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 clearly states the tool returns the status and update date of a configured item, which matches the tool name. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools focused on accounts, transactions, and investments, though it does not explicitly mention 'connection' in the description.
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?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling set, there is no obvious similar tool, so the usage context is implied but not stated. It would be stronger if it clarified that this is for checking the status of a configured connection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.