populi_statusShows the configured Populi instance, sandbox key status, and write access, with an optional live check to verify credentials work.
Shows which Populi instance this server talks to, whether the key is a sandbox key, and whether writes are enabled. Set verify to make one live request that checks the key works.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verify | No | Make a live request to check the credentials |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, and the description stays consistent while adding real context: `verify` triggers one live external request, and write capability may or may not be enabled. It stops short of saying what a failed verification looks like or what latency/error surface to expect.
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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary capability front-loaded and the optional parameter behavior trailing. Nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.
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 does the necessary work by naming the three facts returned. It is slightly thin on what differs in the output when `verify` is true (e.g., an auth error vs. a status field), but an agent has enough to call it correctly.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by clarifying that `verify` costs exactly one live request against the API, which tells the agent this is a non-trivial network round-trip rather than a local flag check.
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?
States a specific verb ('Shows') and enumerates exactly what is reported: target instance, sandbox-vs-production key, and write enablement. The diagnostic nature distinguishes it cleanly from the data-access siblings (populi_get, populi_search_api, populi_find_people), none of which report server configuration.
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 second sentence explains what setting `verify` does, which implies the usage context (credential sanity check), but the description never says when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor when to leave `verify` off. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.