health
Health check. Returns server status and optional echo.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| echo | No | Optional string to echo back |
Health check. Returns server status and optional echo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| echo | No | Optional string to echo back |
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 discloses the return behavior (server status and echo) but gives no details about response format, errors, or whether authentication is needed. This is minimal but not misleading.
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 extremely concise, using only two sentences with no unnecessary words. Everything contributes to the tool's purpose.
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 is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description gives the basic return behavior but lacks specifics about the status format or how the echo is returned. It's adequate but not rich.
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 schema already describes the echo parameter fully, and the description merely repeats 'optional echo'. Baseline score of 3 because schema coverage is 100% and description adds no new meaning.
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 tool's purpose as a health check that returns server status and optionally echoes a string. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all unrelated utilities.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool or alternative approaches. The description simply states what it does without indicating prerequisites or exclusions.
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.