Checks simulation case readiness, returns red/orange/green status, identifies the step to fix, and suggests the corresponding update_case call.
Readiness check. red = cannot solve (fix first), orange = solvable with caveats, green = ready. Each item says which step to fix and suggests the update_case call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes | ||
| language | No | ja |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the annotations cannot: the three-tier result model and the fact that each finding carries both the step to fix and a suggested update_case call, which matters because there is no output schema.
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?
Three short lines, front-loaded with the verdict model and no filler. The telegraphic style ("Readiness check.", "Each item says...") is efficient but slightly under-specified, since "item" is never grounded.
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?
With only two parameters and no output schema, the description does a fair job explaining the return shape. But it omits the language parameter entirely and does not situate the tool relative to the many other check/verification siblings, leaving gaps an agent would need to close by trial.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it does not. The language parameter (enum ja/en/zh, default ja) is never mentioned, leaving unclear whether the item messages and suggested calls are localized; case_id is only inferable from 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?
"Readiness check" plus the red/orange/green taxonomy makes clear this tool evaluates a case before solving and grades it. That is a specific verb+resource, but it does not distinguish itself from near-synonym siblings such as verify_case, print_check, or check_convergence, so an agent still has to guess which check to call.
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?
"red = cannot solve (fix first)" implies this runs before a solve and that remediation is expected, and it points to update_case as the follow-up. However, it gives no condition for choosing this over verify_case or environment_check, and no prerequisites or timing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed