Check local adapter readiness for Origin data access. Verifies setup without contacting Origin or validating sessions.
Report local adapter readiness. Does not verify a session or contact Origin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| liveReady | Yes | ||
| credentials | Yes | ||
| upstreamChecked | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by clarifying that the check is purely local and does not reach out to Origin, which is important behavioral information for an agent deciding whether this call satisfies a need.
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?
Two short sentences carry complete meaning with zero filler. The key action and scope are front-loaded, and the critical exclusion follows immediately. Every word earns its place.
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-reporting tool, the description is fully complete. Annotations cover the safety profile, the output schema explains return values, and the description supplies the local-only, no-Origin-contact context needed to decide when to use it.
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 schema has no parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to document. With zero parameters, baseline is 4; the description adequately conveys that no arguments are needed and that the tool simply reports status.
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') and resource ('local adapter readiness'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly stating it does not verify a session or contact Origin, so an agent can tell it apart from remote-connection or account-related tools.
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 clearly indicates this is for local adapter readiness only and explicitly excludes session verification or any Origin contact. It does not name alternative tools for those remote checks, but the context and sibling list make the intended use understandable and the exclusion is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.