dealfinder_statusCheck which affiliate feeds are loaded, their item counts, last refresh times, and errors, and see which networks produce tracked links before searching or connecting an assistant.
Shows loaded feeds (counts, last refresh, errors) and which networks produce tracked links.
| 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 openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the shape of what is returned (feed counts, last refresh, errors, which networks produce tracked links), which is valuable since 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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the resource (loaded feeds) and parenthetically enumerates the key data points. No wasted words.
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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent will get back. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g., what an error field implies) but is otherwise 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 nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies.
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 a specific verb and resource: it reports loaded feeds with counts, last-refresh times, errors, and tracked-link networks. That is clearly distinguishable from product/link siblings like get_buy_link and search_products, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is given. Usage is only implied by the name and content (a diagnostic/health check for the DealFinder integration), so an agent must infer that this is for verifying feed and link-tracking state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.