source_statusChecks warehouse, SEC EDGAR connection, and GitHub health plus role permissions without contacting external services, so you can verify system readiness before filing tasks.
Health of the warehouse, the SEC connection and GitHub, and what this role may do. Contacts neither the SEC nor GitHub.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond them: no outbound contact with the SEC or GitHub, which tells the agent this is a local/cached check with no external latency or side effects. It does not disclose how fresh the reported health is, whether results are cached, or how permission information is derived. There is mild tension with openWorldHint=true, though that flag can reasonably be read as covering the external systems whose state is being reported.
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 with no filler, and the scope of what is reported is front-loaded before the no-network caveat. Nothing is redundant, though the first sentence crams four distinct reporting areas into one clause.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying the return shape, and it only enumerates the topics (warehouse, SEC, GitHub, permissions) without indicating whether health is reported as booleans, status strings, error messages, or timestamps. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool this is adequate to select it, but not enough to know what an agent will actually receive.
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 the schema imposes nothing for the description to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by describing a pure status read.
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 names the specific resources being reported on (warehouse, SEC connection, GitHub) plus role permissions, so the agent knows this is a diagnostics/health tool rather than a data-fetch tool like get_company or search_filings. It stops short of a crisp verb phrasing such as 'reports health', but the subject matter is unambiguous and clearly distinct from all listed siblings.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The clause 'Contacts neither the SEC nor GitHub' implicitly signals this is a cheap local check rather than a live connectivity probe, which is useful context an agent can infer usage from, but that inference is left to the reader.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.