Check the availability and status of each data source in the Taiwan Laboratory MCP, returning per-source status rather than a single health score.
Return strict per-source status; this is not a single health score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sources | Yes | ||
| data_mode | Yes | ||
| contract_version | No | public-contract-v1 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates strictness and per-source granularity, but does not say whether the operation is read-only, whether any sources can be missing, or what kind of response shape to expect independent of the output schema. This is a minimal disclosure for a no-annotation tool.
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?
One short, direct sentence with no filler. The core meaning is front-loaded, and the clarifying negation about a health score earns its place by shaping expectations.
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?
Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for a simple status-retrieval tool. It does not tell the agent when to choose this over related siblings, but the low complexity and output schema reduce the need for extensive behavioral detail.
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, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for schema coverage gaps.
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: 'Return strict per-source status'. It also clarifies the tool is not a single health score, which gives some differentiation from a generic status check. It does not name sibling distinctions, but the core purpose is clear.
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?
The description provides a mild negative usage signal by saying 'this is not a single health score', implying it should not be used for an overall health assessment. However, it gives no positive guidance about when to use this tool, no alternatives, and no distinction from sibling status-related tools such as standards_status or eqa_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.