Check ameriflux-mcp status

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/no-destructive), the description adds real value: identity output is 'booleans and profile names only, never the values' (a privacy guarantee), and it clarifies that network contact only happens when check_api=true, refining the broad openWorldHint. It doesn't quantify cost or latency of the API probe, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then grouped details, then a next-step pointer; every clause carries distinct information. The semicolon-dense enumeration is efficient but slightly packed, so it is not maximally crisp.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, yet the description still summarizes the report contents. Combined with annotations covering safety/idempotency and the conditional network note, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains check_api. The description restates the same condition and only marginally adds the notion that it is 'one small request' to a specific endpoint. Baseline 3 for full schema coverage is appropriate.

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 a specific diagnostic operation ('Liveness and capability report') and enumerates exactly what it reports: server version, protocol/transport, download-identity configuration status, download enablement and file destination. No sibling tool in the list performs status/diagnostics, so the role is unambiguous and distinct from the data-retrieval 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?

It states the condition for the optional behavior ('With check_api=true it also makes one small request... to confirm connectivity') and gives an explicit next step ('read ameriflux://guide/identity to set up downloads'). It does not state when *not* to call this or contrast it against any sibling, but no sibling overlaps, so the practical guidance is clear.

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