connection_statusCheck which CRM platforms have API keys configured, verify each connection, and list required environment variables without exposing key values.
Which platforms have keys set (keys themselves are never shown), test each connection, and list the environment variables each platform needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| test | No | Also make one read-only call per connected platform. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description usefully adds that key values are never exposed (a security-relevant guarantee) and that testing performs one call per connected platform. It stops short of describing failure behavior when a key is invalid or a call fails, which for an open-world diagnostic tool would be valuable.
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?
One compact sentence with three informative clauses and no filler, front-loading the key status question. The noun-phrase list style is a bit clipped but wastes no words.
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 simple read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent gets back: key presence, test results, and required env vars. Only a note on how results are shaped or how failures surface is missing.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'test' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'test each connection' clause hints at the parameter's effect but does not add format or cost details beyond what the schema already says.
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 names three concrete outputs: which platforms have keys configured, per-connection tests, and the environment variables each platform requires. That is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like launch_health or what_breaks, though the fragment-style phrasing (no leading verb) makes it slightly less crisp than it could be.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for diagnosing credential/connection setup, but the description never states when to use it instead of launch_health, what_breaks, or how_to, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.