Verify whether the MIREA Lecture Assistant is working and return an ok/problem verdict with repair actions, current pair, and network checks when issues occur.
Is the app working right now? Returns verdict "ok" or "problem", each problem with repair actions, the current pair, and a network check (MIREA sites, internet, VPN) when something is wrong. Call this first; if ok, nothing else is needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a fair job: it discloses the verdict values, that problems come bundled with repair actions, and that the network check (MIREA sites, internet, VPN) only runs when something is wrong. It never explicitly confirms the call is read-only/no-side-effect, which for a zero-annotation tool leaves a small safety gap.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core question, then the return contract, then the routing rule. Every clause carries information; nothing is restated from the schema or title.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns itself — and it does, listing the verdict, per-problem repair actions, the current pair, and the conditional network check. With zero parameters and no annotations, this is enough for an agent to call it correctly.
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 and the description doesn't invent any, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies for a 0-param tool with 100% schema coverage.
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?
States a specific question the tool answers ("Is the app working right now?") and enumerates what the verdict contains, so the resource and output shape are clear. It doesn't name any sibling (e.g. get_status or get_recent_problems) to draw a boundary, relying instead on a positional rule ("call this first") for differentiation.
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 this first; if ok, nothing else is needed" is an explicit, actionable routing rule that tells the agent both when to invoke and when to stop. What's missing is the reverse case — which sibling to call when the verdict is "problem" — so the guidance is one-directional rather than complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.