Check the MCP server's local operational status, including report mode, network lock, supported endpoints, and limits. Provides configuration details without network access.
Report mode, network lock, supported endpoints and local limits. No network access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| warnings | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does 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 beyond annotations by explicitly stating 'No network access' and enumerating what the status report covers, which helps set expectations for an agent.
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 sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning: what is reported and the key behavioral constraint. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable.
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 zero-parameter status tool with a rich output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It explains the tool's scope and network behavior, leaving no critical gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly adds no unnecessary parameter details.
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 uses a specific verb ('Report') with a clear resource: mode, network lock, supported endpoints, and local limits. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which perform searches, geocoding, or product lookups rather than reporting status.
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 clear usage: call this tool to obtain environment/status information. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling tool serves the same purpose, so the context is clear and no exclusions are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.