tabelog_statusChecks whether the Tabelog browser profile is signed in, reports session expiry and data storage location, and starts Chrome in the background if needed.
Where data is stored, whether this browser profile is signed in to Tabelog, and when the sign-in expires (read from Tabelog's session cookie at sign-in). Starts Chrome in the background if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond them: the expiry is read from Tabelog's session cookie captured at sign-in (implying staleness), and the call can spawn a background Chrome process as a side effect. That side effect is exactly the kind of trait annotations do not convey.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the returned information and closes with the side-effect caveat. Every clause carries information, though the phrasing 'Where data is stored' is slightly oblique compared with a plain 'Returns the data directory'.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so by naming all three fields; combined with the zero-parameter schema and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly. It stops short of stating the response shape or what the storage path actually looks like.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly avoids inventing inputs.
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 enumerates the three concrete facts the call reports (storage location, sign-in state for this browser profile, sign-in expiry), which is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like tabelog_login or get_preferences. The verb is implicit (a noun phrase rather than 'Returns...'), which keeps it just short of a 5.
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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is a diagnostic/pre-flight call, but the description never says when to call it or that tabelog_login is the follow-up when the profile is not signed in. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.