Inspect EdgeScreen health, version, active OFAC snapshot size, and x402 pricing (free, no payment required).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "health_check"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot: this call is free and requires no payment, which matters for an x402-metered service where other calls likely cost money. It stops short of describing the response shape or any rate limits, but the essential additional trait is disclosed.
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 sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the four returned facets with no filler. The payment note is tucked into a parenthetical where it belongs, keeping the primary purpose first.
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 diagnostic with no output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does so by naming all four return facets (health, version, OFAC snapshot size, pricing). Nothing an agent needs in order to decide to call it and interpret the result is missing.
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 disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema's additionalProperties:false with an empty properties object is consistent with a no-argument probe.
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?
Uses a specific verb ('Inspect') plus an enumerated resource list — health, version, active OFAC snapshot size, x402 pricing — so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It is also plainly distinguishable from the sibling screen_* tools, which perform screening actions rather than status inspection.
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 parenthetical 'free, no payment required' implies this is a safe pre-flight/cost-free call, and the diagnostic nature of 'health_check' suggests usage. However, it never states when to call this versus the screening siblings (e.g., before screening, or to verify service availability), leaving the timing guidance implicit.
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.