check_connectionsVerifies configuration and checks reachability of external services while keeping credentials hidden.
Checks configuration and reachability without returning secrets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| schema_version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the explicit guarantee 'without returning secrets', which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not describe any side effects, permissions, or output details beyond that, so it adds only modest value over the annotations.
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 a single sentence that immediately states the purpose and the key constraint (no secrets). There is no fluff, and the information is front-loaded. It is an ideal length for a tool with no parameters.
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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what is checked (configuration and reachability) and a critical guarantee (no secrets). It lacks explicit usage context, but the output schema covers return values, and the low complexity keeps the tool simple enough.
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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially complete.
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 states a clear verb ('Checks') and resource ('configuration and reachability'), and the title names the specific services (Figma, Yandex Disk, state-store). It distinguishes itself as a general connectivity check, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like verify_yandex_upload. The phrase 'without returning secrets' adds a useful boundary.
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. It does not mention that it should be run before exports, as a diagnostic, or when to prefer it over verify_yandex_upload. The intended usage context is left entirely to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.