Check whether this agent is paired with a Zas account and list the owner-approved channels it can send to or read from.
Say whether this agent is paired with a Zas account, and list the owner's channels it may send to or read from. The owner sees every item this agent sends with the >_ agent mark and this agent's name, on every device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the owner sees every item sent by this agent with the >_ agent mark and agent name on every device (an auditing/visibility property). It does not explicitly confirm the call is side-effect-free or describe behavior when unpaired.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose (pairing status plus channel list). The second sentence about owner-visible agent marking is somewhat tangential to invocation but adds legitimate context, so it earns its place without bloat.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must convey return content, and it does: pairing status plus the list of channels the agent may send to or read from. It omits the unpaired/error case and any note on caching or refresh, but is otherwise complete for a zero-parameter status tool.
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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4 and there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. Nothing is missing on this dimension.
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: reports whether the agent is paired with a Zas account and lists the owner's channels available for send/read. It is clearly distinguishable from zas_pair, but it never names a sibling or scope boundary explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a status/introspection check, likely before sending. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative (e.g., 'use zas_pair if not yet paired'), so the guidance is adequate but thin.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.