Inspect a Fredo QA license to confirm signature validity, tier, licensee, last covered release date, and fallback status, with an optional license key for read-only checks.
Inspect the current Fredo QA license: signature validity, tier, licensee, last covered release date (updates_until), and fallback status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| license_key | No | Optional signed license file (path or JSON content) to inspect without modifying session state |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the reported facets (including a non-obvious 'fallback status'), which effectively describes the return payload absent an output schema, but it never states explicitly that the call is side-effect free, what happens when no license is installed or the license is invalid/expired, or how errors surface.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field enumeration is dense but every item conveys real information. Slightly list-like, but nothing is wasted.
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, zero-required-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, enumerating the reported values covers most of what an agent needs. The remaining gaps are edge-case behavior (no license present, invalid signature) and the omitted-parameter default, which are modest given the tool's simplicity.
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 optional license_key parameter is fully documented there, including the 'without modifying session state' nuance. The description adds no meaning about the parameter and does not clarify the default behavior when it is omitted (i.e. inspecting the active session license).
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 (Inspect) and resource (the current Fredo QA license), and enumerates exactly what facets are reported: signature validity, tier, licensee, updates_until, and fallback status. This clearly separates it from the mutating sibling set_license_key.
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: the word 'Inspect' suggests a read-only check, which the agent can infer as an alternative to set_license_key. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus quick_check, get_version, or set_license_key, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.