sef_check_setupDisplays the current environment, safety switches, and profile summary without network calls so you can verify your setup before sending invoices.
Shows environment (demo/prod), safety switches and profile summary. Makes no network calls.
| 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 declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by stating "Makes no network calls" and by disclosing the returned content categories, which matters for an agent deciding whether this call is safe in an offline or sandboxed context.
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 with zero filler. The substantive content (what is shown) is front-loaded, and the safety reassurance follows as a compact qualifier.
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 the return value, and it does so at a summary level (environment, safety switches, profile summary). The shape of "safety switches" is left unspecified, which is a minor gap for an agent that may need to interpret the result, but the definition is otherwise sufficient for a zero-parameter diagnostic.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The schema is empty and fully described, and no parameter semantics are missing.
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 names a specific verb ("Shows") and enumerates the concrete content returned: environment mode (demo/prod), safety switches, and a profile summary. That is enough to distinguish it from the transactional siblings (sef_get_invoice, sef_send_invoice) and from sef_ping, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with sef_ping, the closest diagnostic sibling.
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: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight/diagnostic check to run before issuing invoices, but the description never says when to call it, nor when to prefer sef_ping instead. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.