Check whether the local CLI's relay connection is active. Returns the connected flag, last heartbeat time, and client IDs so agents can verify agent-server reachability before running commands.
Report what servonaut.dev knows about the local CLI's relay connection (connected flag, last heartbeat, client_ids).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.24.0v2.23.8v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool reports data from servonaut.dev about the local CLI's relay connection, with specific output fields. This indicates a read-only, lightweight operation. However, it does not mention error conditions, permissions, or any side effects.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action (report) and the specific outputs. Every word is necessary, with no fluff or redundancy.
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?
Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is quite complete for a simple status-checking tool. It explains the data source and what is returned. However, it does not mention whether the tool requires an active relay connection or authentication, but overall it provides adequate context.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it does not. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is high, and the description adds value by specifying what the tool returns, which is sufficient.
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 clearly states the tool reports relay connection status from servonaut.dev, listing specific fields (connected flag, last heartbeat, client_ids). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'relay_reconnect' (which is for reconnection) and 'check_status' (which is more general).
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 description implies the tool is for checking relay connection status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use or context. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.