Check each tool in the bundle—time-tracker, price-tracker, spreadsheet, invoice, expense-tracker—to see if it runs free or Pro, and find where to upgrade the whole bundle.
Show whether each server in the bundle (time-tracker, price-tracker, spreadsheet, invoice, expense-tracker) runs free or Pro, and where to upgrade the whole bundle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Show' implies a read-only, non-destructive action, and the expected output is described. However, there is no explicit statement about side effects, authentication needs, or whether the status is checked live or from cached data, though this is less critical for a zero-parameter status tool.
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, focused sentence. It front-loads the primary action and scope, then gives the output dimension and upgrade location. Every clause adds value; there is no filler or repetition.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: which servers are checked, what statuses are shown, and where to upgrade. A minor omission is the exact response format or return structure, but that is not critical given the simplicity of the 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 has zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter-related text.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Show') and resource: the license status of five named servers (time-tracker, price-tracker, spreadsheet, invoice, expense-tracker). It also indicates the output dimension ('free or Pro') and upgrade guidance. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool license_activate, which implies activation rather than status checking.
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 description makes it easy to infer this is a status/read-only tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus license_activate. There is no mention of when not to use it or which alternative to choose. An agent would have to rely on sibling names and context rather than direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.