Check edi-mcp status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it never reveals the key, it discloses backend routing logic based on key presence, states which tools require a key, and explains that check_api triggers one small (cost-bearing) request to the backend. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail annotations cannot carry.

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 capability list is front-loaded and dense with no filler, and the actionable next step lands last. However, the opening sentence is a long run-on enumerating five separate facts, which slightly hurts scannability.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still summarizes the report contents (version, protocol, key availability, backend, key-requiring tools, downloads), and it covers the one optional parameter's side effect. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call this tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the token exchange and DataONE query mechanics. The description restates check_api mostly in terms of intent ('confirm the key and connectivity'), adding only marginal meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Liveness and capability report') and enumerates exactly what it reports: server version/protocol, EDI API key availability, backend routing (pasta vs dataone), which tools need a key, and download status. This is clearly distinguishable from the data-fetching siblings like edi_get_package or edi_search_packages.

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?

Gives concrete usage context (use check_api=true to verify the key and connectivity) and an explicit next step: 'call edi_search_packages to find data packages.' It does not name a competing tool it should be chosen over, but for a diagnostic tool the routing guidance is clear. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so not a 5.

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