wyea_statusChecks settings, secrets, GitHub auth, repo privacy, alert webhook responses, and status files before work starts; if not ready, reports problems and stops without exposing secrets.
설정·비밀 파일·gh 인증·레포 비공개 여부·알림 웹앱 응답·상태 파일을 한 번에 확인합니다. 작업 시작 전에 먼저 호출하세요. ready:false 면 problems 를 대표에게 보고하고 멈춥니다. 비밀값은 절대 반환하지 않습니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read; the description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee on top of it ('비밀값은 절대 반환하지 않습니다') that an agent needs in order to trust handling the output. It does not describe latency, retries, or failure modes beyond the ready flag, keeping it off a 5.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is checked, then the invocation timing, then the handling rule. Every sentence carries information, though the opening list is dense and could be trimmed slightly.
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 and no params, the description does helpful work by surfacing the 'ready'/'problems' fields an agent will encounter and stating the safety property of the response. It is close to complete, missing only return-shape detail that a schema would otherwise supply.
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 the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify or obscure.
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 (사전 점검 / check) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: settings, secret files, gh auth, repo privacy, webapp response, and the status file. It positions itself as the pre-flight step, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling wyea_check, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
It gives an explicit trigger ('작업 시작 전에 먼저 호출하세요') and a concrete follow-up rule for the failure case ('ready:false 면 problems 를 대표에게 보고하고 멈춥니다'). That is strong when-to-use guidance, though no sibling alternative or when-not condition is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.