statusReports which search backends the server can reach, the default search behavior, and the fetch fallback order without making network calls, so you can verify configuration and availability at no cost.
Report which backends this server can reach, the default search behaviour and the fetch fallback order. Makes no network calls and costs nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that no network calls are made and the call costs nothing, which is exactly the safety/cost signal an agent needs. It stops short of describing the response shape or any caching/staleness caveats.
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 sentences, zero filler, and the content enumeration is front-loaded ahead of the cost note. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.
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 parameterless informational tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it enumerates the three things returned (reachable backends, default search behaviour, fallback order) and disclaims side effects. A slightly fuller note on response format would make it complete.
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 baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it correctly adds none.
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 (Report) and resource (reachable backends, default search behaviour, fetch fallback order), which clearly marks this as an informational tool rather than a search or fetch. It doesn't explicitly name the siblings search or fetch, so differentiation is inferred from context rather than stated.
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?
By mentioning 'default search behaviour' and 'fetch fallback order' it hints at its relationship to the search and fetch siblings, but it never says when to call it (e.g., before search, or to diagnose failures) and provides no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.