Call first when troubleshooting failures: checks whether the locally synced imaging facility library exists and how fresh it is, reports the current user, and returns setup steps if missing.
Is the synced library here, how fresh is it, and who is the user? Call first when anything fails; it gives the setup steps when the library is missing.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the returned diagnostics and, importantly, that it surfaces remediation/setup steps when the library is missing. The read-only nature is strongly implied by a zero-parameter status check but never stated outright, and no auth or cost notes are given, keeping it at a 4.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the diagnostic purpose and followed by the call-first rule. The interrogative phrasing is slightly less crisp than a declarative statement but wastes no words and each clause earns its place.
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-param, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies enough: what is checked, when to call it, and what it offers on failure. It never states the return shape beyond the three facts, but with no output schema that is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.
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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. No argument syntax is needed and none is provided, which is correct.
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 three questions enumerate exactly what the tool reports: library presence, sync freshness, and current user identity. The verb is implicit ('check status'), but the resource and returned facts are unambiguous and distinct from siblings like ipa_find or ipa_search. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it is not, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
'Call first when anything fails' is explicit, actionable when-to-use guidance that an agent can follow without inference. It also covers the missing-library case and says the tool supplies setup steps. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of the 5 bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.