Check neon-mcp status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the conditional network request when check_api=true, the explicit statement that the token is never revealed, and the linkage of token availability to data-file/sample access.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and remains compact while covering capabilities, the conditional API check, a security guarantee, and a next-step suggestion. A few terms like 'catalog warmth' could be seen as jargon, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, a rich output schema, and safety annotations already present, the description covers everything needed: purpose, conditional behavior, security posture, and an orientation to the next appropriate tool. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, and the check_api parameter is already well documented in the schema with its default, size, and purpose. The tool description largely repeats the schema's parameter explanation rather than adding materially new semantics, so the 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?

The description clearly identifies this as a 'Liveness and capability report' for the neon-mcp server, enumerating specific items like server version, token availability, download status, and rate-limit headroom. It is unambiguously distinct from the data-access siblings and even directs to neon_search_products for finding a data product.

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 establishes a clear context: this is an initial status/capability check, and it suggests calling neon_search_products next. It also explains when check_api=true is useful (testing reachability and rate-limit headers). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the router hint and report framing make the intended usage clear.

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