get_statusReports configured vaults and checks if the requested or default vault's graph store is reachable.
Report which vaults are configured and whether the requested (or default) vault's graph store is reachable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vault | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| vaults | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| default_vault | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Report' plus a reachability check implies a non-mutating diagnostic, and it discloses what is inspected, but it never states that nothing is modified, whether the probe can fail/timeout, or any permission requirement.
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 with no filler, leading with what is reported and following with the reachability condition. Slightly dense but nothing is wasted.
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?
One optional parameter, no annotations, and an output schema that already documents return values, so the description need not explain the response. What it covers is adequate; only the omission of any usage trigger holds it back.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it establishes that the vault argument is optional ('requested (or default)') and that a fallback default vault is used when omitted — meaning the schema's bare string/null property and null default do not convey. It stops short of naming the parameter or its accepted values.
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 names a specific verb ('Report') and two concrete resources: configured vaults and the reachability of a vault's graph store. That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from data-oriented siblings like graph_stats or list_notes, though it never explicitly names which siblings are adjacent.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a health/configuration probe, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use trigger (e.g. before indexing or when operations fail) and names no alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.