get_statusCheck ReceiptCal API reachability, local authentication state, and safe account-connection steps. Use it to diagnose connectivity or sign-in issues before requesting food logs or recipe ideas.
Check ReceiptCal API reachability, local authentication state, and safe account-connection instructions. Never returns an access token.
| 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, closed-world), so the description is freed to add real value: it enumerates what gets checked and defensively states 'Never returns an access token,' a security-relevant disclosure not derivable from annotations. It stops short of describing the response shape or failure modes.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the verb and the three checks, with the token disclaimer appended efficiently. No redundant or filler text.
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-param diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and the key guarantee (no token returned). Slightly more on the returned status/error distinction would make it fully self-sufficient, but nothing critical is missing.
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 are no parameter semantics to document; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies with nothing further the description could 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 (Check) and three concrete resources: API reachability, local authentication state, and account-connection instructions. No sibling tool performs a connection/diagnostic check, so an agent can distinguish this immediately from the prepare_* and get_* siblings.
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 implied (verify connectivity/auth before attempting ReceiptCal-backed operations) but never stated as an explicit when-to-use condition, and no alternatives or exclusions are given. Adequate minimum-viable guidance given that no sibling overlaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.