hns_api_statusCheck whether the HOUSE N STARS WordPress property API is reachable through the Render MCP server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tools | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| service | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| wordpress_status_api | Yes | ||
| wordpress_found_posts | Yes | ||
| returned_property_count | Yes | ||
| wordpress_properties_api | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "returned_property_count": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "service": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tools": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "wordpress_found_posts": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "wordpress_properties_api": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "wordpress_status_api": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status",
+ "service",
+ "version",
+ "wordpress_status_api",
+ "wordpress_properties_api",
+ "returned_property_count",
+ "wordpress_found_posts",
+ "tools"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context that this is a connectivity/status check directed at a specific WordPress API through the Render MCP server, but it does not disclose details such as timeout behavior, error semantics, or what happens when the API is unreachable. Given the simple read-only nature, this is adequate but not rich.
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 names the target resource, the operation, and the access context efficiently. Every word contributes to understanding.
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 with an output schema and supporting annotations, the description is complete. There are no hidden inputs or complex behaviors that require further explanation. An agent can invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.
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. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema confirms no inputs are required. This is appropriate for a lightweight status check.
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 states a specific verb ('Check whether') and a clear resource ('HOUSE N STARS WordPress property API'), and distinguishes this health-check tool from the data-retrieval siblings like get_property and search_hns_properties. The intent is immediately unambiguous.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to verify that the upstream API is reachable rather than fetching property data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to make the right routing decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.