Get the live health verdict for one MCP server by its exact registry name (e.g. 'io.github.owner/name'). Returns stars, last-push recency, gone/archived/deprecated flags, name-collision count, and a fact-based health verdict (healthy | issues | unknown).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Exact MCP registry server name |
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 discloses that this is a live lookup (implies read-only, non-destructive) and explicitly lists the flags and verdict it returns. It also notes the verdict is fact-based (healthy | issues | unknown). While it doesn't mention potential failure cases (e.g., unknown name), the return of 'unknown' hint at that. This is solid behavioral disclosure for a look-up tool.
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?
A single, information-dense sentence that leads with the core purpose then lists the outputs. There is no filler, every clause adds useful detail, and the example is woven in naturally. It is efficient and easy to scan.
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?
The tool has only one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fully covers purpose, input format, and the complete set of returned fields. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (the only param 'name' is described as 'Exact MCP registry server name'). The description adds value by giving a concrete format example ('io.github.owner/name') and stressing the need for exactness, which clarifies the expected input beyond the generic schema text. This is a meaningful enhancement over the baseline.
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 the action ('Get... verdict') and the resource ('one MCP server by its exact registry name'). It concisely enumerates the returned fields (stars, recency, flags, collisions, verdict), which sets expectations and distinguishes it from sibling search/recent tools that do not target a single exact name.
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 specifies the key prerequisite: the caller must provide the exact registry name, with a concrete format example. It implicitly signals when to use this tool (when you already know the exact name) versus siblings like census_search or census_lookalikes, but it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. The guidance is clear enough for correct selection.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one for exact lookup by name, the other for keyword search. There is no overlap in functionality.
Both tools follow the same 'census_<verb>' pattern ('lookup' and 'search'), which is predictable and consistent.
With only two tools, the set is minimal but appropriate for a focused census service covering lookup and search. However, it borders on feeling thin.
The tools cover the core operations (lookup and search), but lack additional features like listing all servers or retrieving detailed statistics, which are minor gaps.
