Verifies access to the configured notes database snapshot and reports its schema, without reading note content. Use it before reading notes to confirm the snapshot is available.
Check database snapshot access and schema. Does not read note content. Writes are URL actions on the live app; reads use the configured snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the environment split: writes are URL actions on the live app while reads use the configured snapshot. That is genuine context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't disclose failure modes or what the check returns.
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 short sentences with the scope-limiting statement front-loaded right after the purpose. No filler, though the live-app/snapshot sentence is terse enough to be slightly cryptic.
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 parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what the 'check' returns and how to interpret the snapshot-access/schema result, and it does not. An agent knows it is a safe diagnostic call but not what to expect 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is nothing for the schema to document and the description has no parameter semantics to add.
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 and resource ('Check database snapshot access and schema') and immediately bounds the scope with 'Does not read note content,' which separates it from read_note/list_notes. It stops short of saying what the check actually reports, so the purpose is clear but not fully pinned down.
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 through negative scope ('Does not read note content'), which weakly routes the agent away from the note-reading siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use trigger (e.g., verify connectivity before querying, or after configuration changes) and no named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.