Confirm catalogue coverage, connection policy, and reviewed capabilities before relying on Infomaniak AI diagnostics or approval-gated write operations.
Check catalogue coverage, connection policy and reviewed capabilities.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only vague nouns ('connection policy', 'reviewed capabilities') without saying what state is inspected, whether it performs a live connection check, or what the response contains.
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 padding, so nothing needs trimming. Its brevity, however, comes at the cost of substance rather than being earned by density.
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 no-parameter, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description should state what the status payload covers. It hints at three areas but leaves the actual returned information and the meaning of 'coverage' unexplained.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 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?
The verb 'check' and the objects 'catalogue coverage, connection policy and reviewed capabilities' gesture at a diagnostic/status resource, but the phrasing is jargon-heavy and never says plainly what the tool reports or returns. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings infomaniak_catalogue and infomaniak_search, which plausibly overlap with 'catalogue coverage'.
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 indication of when this tool should be chosen over infomaniak_search, infomaniak_catalogue or infomaniak_read, and no preconditions or exclusions are given. The agent must guess at the intended trigger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.