Check which reservation providers have API keys and tokens configured, showing integration readiness.
Show which providers are configured (which API keys / tokens are present).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "status"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that it checks presence of API keys/tokens, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether it verifies key validity, how errors are handled, or the exact output format. This is basic transparency but lacks depth.
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, grammatically complete sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and directly states the purpose. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter status-check tool.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains what is shown (configured providers) and qualifies what 'configured' means (presence of keys/tokens). It does not specify return format, but for a simple status tool this is not a critical gap, especially given the output schema absence.
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 100% schema coverage (trivially). Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4, and the description needs no additional parameter semantics. It correctly focuses on the tool's behavior.
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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and identifies the exact resource ('which providers are configured'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle restaurant search, booking, payments, and account actions. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives, such as 'use this to check configuration before making API calls' or 'use this if you need to verify provider keys are present.' There is no context about prerequisites or typical invocation scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.