health_checkCheck server health and connectivity.
Returns: Dictionary with health status including: - status: "healthy" or "unhealthy" - version: Server version - environment: Current environment (dev/staging/prod)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return structure (status, version, environment) and the connectivity check behavior, which goes beyond the annotation-only information.
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, front-loaded with the purpose, and follows with a clear bulleted list of return fields. No filler or redundant content.
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 health check tool, the description fully covers its purpose and return data. The output structure is described, and no additional context is needed given the tool's simplicity and the supporting annotations.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters. Baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and no explanation is needed.
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 'Check server health and connectivity' with a specific verb and resource. This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools, which all focus on funder/nonprofit data operations.
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 purpose is unambiguous and provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to verify server health or connectivity. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the domain differentiation from siblings makes the usage context evident.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: find_funders_for_peers uses peer-based collaborative filtering, search_funders does name/topic lookup, search_open_grants finds active RFPs, search_nonprofits searches recipients, get_funder_* tools provide different aspects of funder data, and utilities like health_check and list_tools are separate. No overlap.
Naming conventions are mixed: 'find_', 'get_', 'search_', 'health_check', 'list_tools', 'get_ntee_codes'. While verbs are descriptive, there is no single consistent pattern (e.g., all search_ or all get_). This could cause slight confusion.
12 tools is well-scoped for a foundation discovery server. Each tool addresses a clear need (prospecting, detail, financials, jobs, utilities) without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of foundation research: finding funders (by peers, name, open grants), getting detailed profiles, grants, stats, financials, NTEE codes, and even funder jobs. The inclusion of recipient-side search (search_nonprofits) complements the funder side, leaving no obvious gaps.