Check local configuration and verify Morning (Green Invoice) authentication with a read-only test. Confirms your API connection works without creating records.
Check local configuration. verifyMorning checks authentication and a read endpoint; it does not create records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verifyMorning | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so "it does not create records" largely restates existing metadata. It does add useful context that the check touches authentication and a read endpoint, but says nothing about failure modes, rate limits, or what the result signifies.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler. Slightly muddled by mixing a purpose statement with a parameter explanation in the same breath.
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 single optional boolean with no output schema, the description covers intent and part of the flag's effect, but omits what the returned status actually tells the agent and when to set verifyMorning=true. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gap is moderate.
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 0%, so the description must carry the one parameter, and it partially does by explaining that verifyMorning exercises authentication and a read endpoint. It never states what the default (false) path does versus true, leaving the behavior only half specified.
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?
"Check local configuration" gives a verb and a resource, but "local configuration" is vague for something called connection_status and doesn't clearly convey that this reports connectivity/auth state. No sibling is named or distinguished, so the agent must infer how this differs from request_status or read_morning.
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 offers no when-to-use context, no preconditions, and no alternatives among the many sibling status/read tools. The only guidance is an implicit hint about the verifyMorning flag, which is parameter-level rather than usage-level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.