Retrieve a covenant's current state, consumed and remaining budget, and total check count to monitor lease authority and budget adherence.
[covenant — deny-by-default authority leases] Current state, consumed/remaining budget, and check count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| covenant_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.12v0.1.11v0.1.9Input schema / properties / covenant_id / titleRemoved value: -"Covenant Id"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"covenant_statusArguments"Input schema / properties / covenant_id / titleAdded value: +"Covenant Id"Input schema / titleAdded value: +"covenant_statusArguments"Input schema / properties / covenant_id / titleRemoved value: -"Covenant Id"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"covenant_statusArguments"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions output fields but does not confirm read-only behavior, auth requirements, or any side effects. Lacks typical transparency for a status tool.
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 very brief, which is concise, but the bracketed prefix seems like metadata and may add noise. It front-loads the key info but could be better structured.
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?
Given no output schema, the description does list the return components (state, budget, check count). However, it lacks specifics like state enum values or budget units, making it barely adequate for a simple status check.
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%, meaning the schema provides no description for the sole parameter covenant_id. The description adds no explanation of what a covenant_id is or how to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 states it returns the current state, consumed/remaining budget, and check count, indicating a status/read tool. It distinguishes from sibling mutation tools like grant and revoke, though it does not explicitly label itself as read-only.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_covenants or check_act. The description only states what it returns, without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.