Check Billy configuration and connection status without exposing credentials. Verify that accounting integrations are ready for receipt imports, payments, and reconciliation.
Configuration and connection status. Never exposes credentials.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee: 'Never exposes credentials.' This goes beyond structured data and provides actionable safety context for an agent deciding whether to call the tool. No contradictions 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 two short sentences, both earning their place. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a key safety note. No filler or redundant information.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides only a high-level idea of what is returned (configuration and connection status) plus a credential safety guarantee. It does not describe what specific configuration or connection details are included, or what the response format looks like. This is adequate but minimal, leaving some ambiguity for an agent that needs to interpret the result.
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 input schema is an empty object with 100% schema description coverage. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter details since none exist.
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 'Configuration and connection status' identifies the resource as status information but lacks a specific verb like 'get' or 'check'. It is not a tautology and clearly relates to status, though the exact action (retrieve, inspect) is implied rather than stated. It distinguishes from siblings in that no other tool is obviously focused on status, but this is not explicitly contrasted.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer that status checks belong here based on the tool name and vague resource description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.