Verify connectivity to Raynet CRM and retrieve basic instance details, confirming your CRM integration is configured and reachable before running sales operations.
Tests the connection to Raynet CRM and returns basic info about the instance
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the primary action ('tests the connection') and a return value ('basic info'), but it does not specify what that info includes, whether the operation is read-only, or any error/timeout behavior. For a connection test, this is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.
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 entire description is one compact sentence with a clear subject, verb, and object. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 diagnostic tool the description is mostly adequate, but 'basic info about the instance' is vague. Since there is no output schema, the agent cannot tell what fields or status details will come back, which reduces completeness for agents that need to interpret the response.
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 description coverage, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4; the description adds nothing needed.
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 states a specific verb ('Tests the connection') and resource ('Raynet CRM'), and adds what it returns ('basic info about the instance'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that scan, search, delete, or create records.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to run this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions are mentioned, and no exclusions are stated. The description implies a diagnostic purpose but never tells the agent whether to use it before other Raynet tools or how it fits into a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.