preflight_checkVerify that the Champollion MRI-to-sulcal-embedding pipeline is correctly configured and accessible before launching stages, so agents can catch setup issues early.
Check whether the Champollion pipeline is correctly configured and accessible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states what is checked, not how the tool behaves. It does not say whether it is read-only, whether it has side effects, or whether a failure raises an error versus reporting a status.
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 well-formed sentence with the purpose front-loaded and nothing extraneous. No filler or restatement of the tool name.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in prose, and there are no parameters to document. For a simple zero-arg diagnostic the description is nearly sufficient, with only the missing usage cue and behavioral note as 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for an empty parameter surface.
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 a specific resource (the Champollion pipeline's configuration and accessibility), making the diagnostic intent clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling start_* or job tools, but the 'preflight' framing is self-evident enough to distinguish it.
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 gives no when/when-not guidance and never mentions the alternatives (e.g. start_pipeline or get_pipeline_info). An agent must infer that this is a pre-run validation step rather than something to be told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.