perplexity_statusCheck whether the app is attachable, which conversation is open, and which model is set. Use this to verify status before interacting.
Check whether the app is attachable, which conversation is open and which model is set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the informational content of the response (attachability, current conversation, current model), which is useful context but not rich behavioral disclosure like auth requirements or failure behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause enumerates a distinct piece of returned state, so nothing is wasted.
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 parameterless status probe with no output schema, the description enumerates what the agent will learn, which is close to sufficient. It stops short of stating the return shape or how the attachability signal should be acted on, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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?
Zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to document and the description has no parameter semantics to add. Baseline 4 for a parameterless tool.
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 enumerates the exact pieces of state reported: attachability, open conversation, and active model. This clearly separates it from siblings like perplexity_threads (lists threads) and perplexity_models (lists models). Mild ambiguity remains in 'the app', but the Perplexity prefix and sibling set make the referent recoverable.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent must infer that this is a pre-attach probe before cdp_launch/cdp_detach, but the description never says so. It is implied usage at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.