Displays provider capabilities, local budget, and scheduler configuration to inspect setup without claiming live connectivity.
Show provider capabilities, local budget and scheduler configuration. Does not claim live connectivity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| schema_version | No | 1.0 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful caveat beyond that: the reported configuration is local/capability-oriented and should not be treated as confirming live connectivity. It does not, however, say whether budget values are cached or how fresh scheduler config is.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is shown, followed by the single most important caveat. Nothing is padded and nothing relevant is buried.
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 an output schema present, the description need not describe return values, and with zero parameters there are no inputs to explain. Combined with the rich annotations, the definition is nearly self-sufficient; only the absence of any when-to-use guidance keeps it from being fully complete.
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 no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent inputs.
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 concrete verb ("Show") and enumerates the resources returned: provider capabilities, local budget, and scheduler configuration. It is clearly an introspection/status tool and cannot be confused with any sibling, all of which are domain operations (search, listings, watch, geocode). It stops short of a crisp one-line identity, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus the other 29 dv_* tools, nor prerequisites or sequence guidance. The clause "Does not claim live connectivity" sets expectations about the data rather than helping an agent choose between tools. Usage is only loosely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.