action1-mcp-server

Check endpoint status

action1_get_endpoints_onboarded_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether endpoints were added to an organization and retrieve their onboarding status by org ID, with markdown or JSON output.

Instructions

Check endpoint status. Retrieves information if any endpoints were added to an organization.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`org_id`	No	Org UUID.
`verbose`	No	Skip per-item compactor.
`response_format`	No	Output format. Default markdown.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`self`	No
`type`	No
`endpoints_added`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / endpoints_added
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / id
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / self
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / type
```
Added value: +{}
```

First observedv0.5.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is an org-level onboarding check rather than per-endpoint status, but it does not mention authentication requirements, response shape, or what happens with empty orgs beyond the existence of an output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, but the first sentence 'Check endpoint status' largely repeats the title and is vaguer than the second sentence. The second sentence is useful; the opening could be removed or made more specific without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema, full input schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description covers the minimum needed to call the tool. However, it remains ambiguous about what 'status' actually means and could lead an agent to use this when it wants per-endpoint status.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so org_id, verbose, and response_format are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond implying that an organization scope is involved.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The second sentence specifies the resource: information about whether any endpoints were added to an organization. However, the opening 'Check endpoint status' is vague and could be confused with get_endpoint, list_endpoints, or endpoints_summary; the description does not explicitly distinguish it from those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like action1_list_endpoints or action1_endpoints_summary. The description only implies a narrow onboarding-check use case without stating exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server