Check configuration and connection status for MCP accounting operations without exposing credentials. Enable verbose mode for detailed diagnostics.
Configuration and connection status. Never exposes credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verbose | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / verboseAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the call as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee beyond those: 'Never exposes credentials.' It also tells the agent the output scope, configuration and connection state. This is good supplementary transparency for a safe status check.
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 the tool's purpose and followed by a high-value safety note. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation 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 simple status tool with strong annotations, the description covers the essential scope and credential safety. However, with no output schema, it doesn't describe what fields or connection details the status actually contains, and it leaves the meaning of verbose to inference.
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 only parameter, verbose, has no description in the schema and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not compensate by explaining what verbose changes about the output or how it should be used, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the raw name and boolean type.
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 states the tool surfaces configuration and connection status, which is a specific resource and a clear function. It doesn't explicitly name a verb like 'get' or contrast itself with siblings, but 'status' is unambiguous enough to distinguish it from the listed Billy tools.
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?
No guidance is given about when to check status versus using a sibling tool, and no context about how this relates to refresh, execute, or batch operations. The only implicit signal is the word 'status', which suggests checking but doesn't explain prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.