gcp_get_api_statusCheck whether a specific API is enabled for a Google Cloud project. Provide the service name and optional project ID to verify API status.
Checks whether a specific API is enabled for a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | GCP project id; defaults to GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT env var | |
| serviceName | Yes | API service name, e.g. "androidpublisher.googleapis.com", "storage.googleapis.com" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe read-only check, but says nothing about permissions required, behavior when the API or project doesn't exist, or whether an error or false result is returned.
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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate. With no annotations and no output schema, it should at least hint at what the check returns (boolean vs. status object) and how failures surface.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents projectId (env var default) and serviceName (with examples). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (checks) and resource (API enablement for a project), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling gcp_list_enabled_apis, which covers overlapping ground.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus gcp_list_enabled_apis, gcp_enable_api, or gcp_disable_api. The intended context (checking before enabling) is left entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.