Check server capabilities, public sitemap, and boundaries to verify access limits before searching mineral-rights guides. Use this to confirm what the API-free server supports.
Check the current public sitemap/manifest, server capabilities and boundaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about what is checked (sitemap, capabilities, boundaries), which is valuable beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, and it clarifies the scope of the read operation.
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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. There is no extraneous content, and the key information is front-loaded.
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, read-only, idempotent tool with rich annotations, the description is sufficient. It clearly states what the tool checks, though it does not specify the output format. Given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, this is an acceptable level of completeness.
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 schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters, the description need not explain them, and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter information.
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 uses a specific verb 'check' and identifies clear resources: 'current public sitemap/manifest, server capabilities and boundaries.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_guides, read_page, and get_started, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the name 'status' and the description imply it should be used to inspect server state before other operations. This is implied usage, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.