Monitor connector health across your integrations. Identify which connectors are operational and which need attention, without exposing credentials or synced content.
Report each connector's health; never its credentials or synced content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the tool's non-mutating nature. The description adds a useful behavioral guarantee beyond annotations: the report excludes credentials and synced content, which is important contextual information for an agent. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, then immediately constrains the scope with a clear exclusion. Every word contributes meaning; there is no filler or repetition.
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, read-only status tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states what is reported, what is deliberately excluded, and the annotations cover mutability. No critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly 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 input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no missing parameter documentation to compensate for. The description reinforces the no-argument aggregate nature by saying 'each connector's health' rather than implying a single-connector filter.
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 and resource ('Report each connector's health') and clarifies what the report will never contain ('credentials or synced content'). It clearly states the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like composio_status or connector_records_get to sharpen differentiation.
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 phrase 'never its credentials or synced content' provides an explicit when-not boundary, steering agents away from using this tool for credential or content retrieval. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when to prefer this tool over system_status or composio_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.