sota-agw-mcp

Trạng thái cấu hình

gateway_status

Read-only

Retrieves current gateway configuration, including working directory, mailbox, send mode, and SaaS connection status, without exposing passwords or API keys.

Instructions

Cấu hình hiện tại: thư mục làm việc, hộp thư, chế độ gửi, kết nối SaaS (không lộ mật khẩu / key).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gateway_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.11.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: it discloses the scope of exposed configuration and states that secrets (password / key) are intentionally not exposed, which materially shapes what the agent can and cannot learn from the call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the informative field list and the secret-hiding caveat, both of which earn their place. Minor deduction for lacking any leading verb or structure that would make the purpose scannable at a glance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 detail is unnecessary, and with no parameters and a read-only annotation the definition covers nearly everything needed to invoke it. Only a one-line note on when to reach for it over sibling tools is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste space restating an empty argument object.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description enumerates exactly what is returned — working directory, mailbox, send mode, SaaS connection — which makes the resource unambiguous and clearly distinct from the mail/draft/template siblings. It falls short of a 5 because it is a bare noun phrase with no explicit verb stating that it *retrieves/reports* status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs to know the current mail/send/SaaS setup. There is no explicit 'call this when...' statement and no mention of what to use instead for adjacent needs (e.g. mail_list_recent for mailbox contents).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server