Call first to verify connector health and see accessible groups, user, and key status without input.
Call FIRST when unsure whether the connector works or what it can see: 1 health probe, no input. Returns key_status ('valid' | 'rejected' | 'unreachable'), the key's user, its groups[] with member_state, readonly, b3_enabled and notes[].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description details the exact return values: key_status enum, the key's user, groups[] with member_state, readonly, b3_enabled, and notes[]. This adds substantial behavioral context, especially 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?
The description is a single, densely informative sentence. It front-loads the primary usage instruction ('Call FIRST when unsure...') and then succinctly lists return fields, with 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 simple, no-input health probe, the description provides complete context: when to use it, what it returns, and the key statuses. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, and no output schema, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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 the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'no input', which is consistent with the empty schema, but naturally there are no parameters to explain further.
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 ('health probe') and resource ('the connector', 'the key'), and clarifies it checks whether the connector works or what it can see. It is clearly distinguishable from all sibling tools, which deal with polls, discussions, comments, and content.
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?
It explicitly says to call it FIRST when unsure whether the connector works or what it can see, giving clear situational guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, though none are really needed for a unique diagnostic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.