arsenkin_check_updateCheck whether a newer release of the arsenkin-mcp server is available without installing it. The check uses a 24-hour cache; force_refresh bypasses it.
Check for a newer server release; never installs. Cost: free, 24h cache.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force_refresh | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that it never performs an install and that results are served from a 24h cache, which tells the agent results may be stale and explains why a force refresh might exist. Cost is also disclosed. It stops short of describing the return payload, which the output schema covers.
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 clauses, front-loaded with the action and scope, and every clause carries distinct information (action, non-mutation, cost/caching). Zero filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers action, safety boundary, cost, and cache freshness. The only real gap is that the lone input parameter is left undocumented.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter (force_refresh) is never mentioned in the description, so the agent must infer its meaning from the schema alone. The '24h cache' note is the only indirect hint that a refresh override exists.
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 verb and resource ('Check for a newer server release') and immediately bounds the scope with 'never installs', so an agent knows this is a read-only update check rather than any prepare/submit-style sibling. No other sibling covers this action, and the purpose is unambiguous in one clause.
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 'never installs' clause implies the boundary between checking and acting, and 'Cost: free' hints at when it is cheap to call, but no alternative tool or explicit when-not condition is named. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.