tomtom-report-app-statusReports whether an app drew requested data and captures source, stage, error, and duration to help diagnose data or rendering failures.
Internal tool for apps to report whether they drew their data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | No | The tool whose result the app draws | |
| error | No | ||
| stage | No | Where a failure happened | |
| source | No | Where the drawn data came from | |
| status | Yes | ||
| duration_ms | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The word "report" implies the app submits status information, which is a state-changing write, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. That is a direct conflict, so the description contradicts the structured safety metadata rather than supplementing it.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in usage and parameter detail.
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 six-parameter reporting tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits the reporting workflow, expected status values, failure semantics, and how the optional fields should be populated.
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 description mentions no parameters at all, despite six parameters and only 50% schema description coverage. It does not clarify the meaning of status, stage, source, error, duration_ms, or how they relate to a failed draw.
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 names a specific verb and resource: apps report whether they drew their data. It also identifies the tool as internal, which distinguishes it from the public search/geocode/routing siblings, though "drew their data" remains somewhat jargon-like.
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 implies usage by apps reporting draw status, likely after a data/draw cycle, but does not state when to call it versus alternatives or when not to call it. There is no explicit routing guidance among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.