gptproto_statusVerify whether the MCP uses the default API origin, has an API key, and enables file uploads, without exposing the key or custom origin.
Check whether the MCP uses the default API origin, whether an API key exists, and whether file uploads are enabled. Never returns the key or a custom origin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable non-obvious guarantee: it never returns the API key or a custom origin. This prevents an agent from expecting sensitive values and goes beyond the generic annotation signal.
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 two sentences with the three checks front-loaded in the first sentence and a single high-value privacy caveat in the second. No filler or redundancy.
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 parameterless status tool with strong annotations, the description is almost complete. It conveys purpose and a key negative guarantee; only the exact response shape is left implicit, and there is no output schema to make it explicit.
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 and schema description coverage is trivially 100%, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies, and the description appropriately spends no words on parameters.
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 opens with a specific verb—'Check'—and a clear resource: the MCP's configuration status. It enumerates three concrete checks (default API origin, API key existence, file uploads), which distinguishes this from sibling tools that cover models, pricing, and task operations.
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 scope is clear, so an agent can infer this is for inspecting configuration state, but the description never states when to prefer it over a sibling or when to avoid it. There is no explicit workflow cue or exclusion of alternatives, leaving usage 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.