Lists configured SiLA 2 servers and checks whether each responds now, reporting connection errors per server without failing the entire call.
List the configured SiLA 2 servers and whether each one answers right now.
Read-only. Tries to connect to each server; a server that does not answer is reported with its error instead of failing the whole call.
| 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 present, the description carries the full load and does so meaningfully: it discloses read-only semantics, that it actively attempts connections, and that a non-answering server is reported with its error rather than aborting the call. This partial-failure contract is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs and cannot infer from the 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?
Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the failure-tolerance caveat immediately after. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described. The description covers the one non-obvious aspect — active connection probing with per-server error reporting — leaving little an agent would still need to ask about.
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; the baseline for zero-param tools 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?
States a specific verb and resource (list configured SiLA 2 servers) plus the extra scope of reporting live reachability. It implicitly contrasts with describe_server by emphasizing liveness rather than detail, though it never names that sibling.
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 read-only and connect-attempt framing implies discovery/inventory usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. describe_server for details on a specific server).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.