Validate the connection to the active Power BI model using a trivial query to ensure readiness for DAX operations.
Valida la conexion al modelo activo con una consulta trivial.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 burden of disclosure. It conveys the core behavior (executing a trivial query to validate connection) and implies a non-destructive, lightweight operation. However, it does not mention prerequisites like requiring an active model, potential failure modes, or whether the operation is read-only.
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, concise sentence in Spanish that clearly states the purpose and method. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff 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?
Given the tool's low complexity (zero parameters), the presence of an output schema, and the straightforward purpose, the description is largely complete. It could add context about when to run this check relative to other tools, but it is sufficient for a simple connection test.
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 has zero parameters and the schema covers 100% of them vacuously. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly avoids unnecessary parameter details.
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 ('Valida') and resource ('conexion al modelo activo') with a clear method ('consulta trivial'). It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like pbi_health_check or pbi_session_info by focusing on connection validation via a trivial query.
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 implies usage as a quick connection check before other operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pbi_health_check or pbi_session_info. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.