Check Gaia MCP status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral context (what status information is reported) beyond annotations, without contradiction.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that lists all key aspects of the status report without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Report' and immediately conveys the tool's function.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the main categories of returned information. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the output format (e.g., JSON), but overall it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has no parameters and 100% schema coverage. The description adds full meaning by explaining the tool's output categories, which is essential since the schema provides no guidance.

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 explicitly states the tool reports server version, Registry mode, data-contract compatibility, source freshness, counts, and available tools, clearly defining its purpose as a status check. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (gaia_inspect, gaia_search) by focusing on a broad overview.

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 description implies usage for obtaining a quick server status, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives. It is clear enough for a simple status tool, but lacks explicit differentiation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.