Verify ServiceTitan authentication and representative tenant read access to confirm secure connectivity before using other tools.
Verify authentication and representative tenant read access. Use st_readiness_check for report and module compatibility.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+}v2.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying what is actually verified: authentication and representative tenant read access, which is context beyond the generic readonly hint.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative-tool guidance is brief and direct.
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 zero-parameter health check tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description is complete. It states what is checked, routes to the adjacent tool for a different concern, and leaves no operational gaps.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. The schema coverage is effectively complete because the schema is empty, and the description adds sufficient operational context.
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 description uses a specific verb, 'Verify', with a concrete resource: authentication and representative tenant read access. It also differentiates this tool from the sibling st_readiness_check by pointing to its distinct scope.
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 explicitly directs the agent to use st_readiness_check for report and module compatibility, making the intended use case clear. It implicitly tells the agent that st_health_check is for auth/read verification rather than compatibility checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.