Check tenant process engine status to verify whether it is enabled, the company is released, and which agent definitions are open, including each release source.
Estado do motor de processos para este tenant: se o motor está ligado, se a empresa está liberada, quais definições os agentes podem abrir e de onde vem cada liberação (configuração do servidor ou admin).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds substantive context about what the status contains, including that release origin may come from server configuration or admin, which is valuable given there is no output schema.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is dense but each clause adds a concrete status dimension the agent would care about.
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 status tool without an output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the main status components. It could still be more complete by noting permissions or exact return shape, but it is adequate for correct invocation.
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, so the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100%, and there are no parameter semantics to explain beyond the tenant scoping implied by 'para este tenant'.
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 it returns the process engine status for this tenant and enumerates the specific aspects covered: engine on/off, company release, available definitions, and origin of each release. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_scheduler_status or get_tenant_health, but the scope is specific enough to identify the tool.
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?
Usage is implied by the tenant-scoped status framing, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name alternatives. An agent can infer it is for checking engine availability, but must consult sibling definitions to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.