Check the system health, cache performance statistics, and multi-state registry connectivity.
Returns:
JSON object with cache hit/miss counts, total records cached, and connector status for CA, FL, TX, NY, MA, IL, AZ.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return contents (cache hit/miss counts, total records cached, per-state connector status), which implies a read-only diagnostic. However, it does not state whether it requires authentication, whether it is side-effect-free, or what the connector statuses mean (healthy/degraded), leaving behavioral gaps.
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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a clearly delimited 'Returns' block. No filler or redundancy; the two-part structure (what it does / what it returns) is efficient. Slightly over-specified given an output schema exists, but not wasteful.
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 no-argument diagnostic with an output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and understand the result. The absence of usage guidance (when to run it) and permission expectations are the only material gaps, and both are minor for a status probe.
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 there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and there is no schema content the description duplicates or contradicts.
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 ('Check') with concrete resources: system health, cache performance statistics, and multi-state registry connectivity. The purpose is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling tools, all of which are contractor/compliance lookups rather than diagnostics. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings as alternatives, but there is no overlap to disambiguate.
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 says what the tool checks and returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent can infer it is a diagnostic/health probe from the name, but nothing explicitly routes it against the other compliance tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.