mock_statusCheck whether the mock server is running, view its address and refreshed routes, and see the last requests it answered.
Report whether the mock server is running, its address, its routes refreshed from the workspace, and the last requests it answered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| routes | No | ||
| address | No | ||
| running | No | ||
| recentRequests | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.19Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not need to restate it. The description adds real behavioral value by revealing this is an aggregate snapshot (liveness + address + route list + recent traffic) rather than a single-value read, but it does not say what happens when the server is not running (error vs. a status field).
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, that enumerates only the four things the caller actually gets back. No preamble, no filler, nothing redundant.
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 an output schema present, the description is not obliged to explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile; the remaining job is helping the agent decide when to call, which it mostly does. The one gap is the not-running/failure case, which matters for a liveness check and is left unstated.
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 no parameter semantics to explain and the schema is trivially complete. The baseline of 4 applies; nothing in the description misleads about inputs.
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 definition pairs a specific verb ('Report') with a specific resource (the mock server) and then lists exactly what the report contains: running state, address, workspace-refreshed routes, and recent requests. That is far more informative than the title alone and clearly marks it as a read-only status snapshot rather than a request listing ('list_requests') or teardown ('stop_mock'). It falls short of 5 because it never names the sibling tools it should be preferred over.
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 makes the usage clear by implication: it is the diagnostic/preflight call an agent makes to confirm the mock server is up and to see what routes it is serving. However, it states no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition and points to no alternative when, for example, the agent only wants responses ('last_response') or traffic ('list_requests').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.