Get Tranna MCP Service Status

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by explicitly noting 'No platform data is accessed' and mentioning 'authentication placeholder status,' which informs the user that authentication is not fully implemented. This goes beyond the annotation metadata.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Returns statuses') and appends a clarifying note about data access. There is no redundant wording or filler, making it highly efficient.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no siblings. The description sufficiently outlines the return categories and clarifies the tool's non-data-access behavior. Though the output format is not detailed, the lack of an output schema is mitigated by the clear enumeration of what statuses are returned.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description compensates by specifying the key categories of the return value (runtime readiness, auth status, connector statuses), which gives the user a clear idea of what the tool reports. Baseline for zero params is 4.

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 server runtime readiness, authentication placeholder status, and registered connector statuses. The verb 'Returns' specifies an action, the resource is well-defined, and the final sentence 'No platform data is accessed' clarifies the scope, distinguishing this from data-access tools even without siblings.

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 provides clear context: it is a service status/health check tool with no parameters. Since there are no sibling tools, it does not need to differentiate alternatives, but it implicitly signals when to use it (to check MCP service status). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but given the tool's simplicity, the absence of exclusions is acceptable.

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