SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Liveness and latency of one public HTTPS endpoint, measured

agent_intel_api_sla_liveness_benchmark

Read-only

Liveness and latency of one public HTTPS endpoint, measured from this server: three GET requests, returning each HTTP status and the time to the response headers, the median and the worst time, and an UP/DEGRADED/DOWN level. One location only: it does not test other regions, and it does not measure the TLS handshake on its own. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "agent_intel_api_sla_liveness_benchmark"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public https:// endpoint address

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No
`note`	No
`level`	No
`source`	No
`samples`	No
`worstMs`	No
`medianMs`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`successfulSamples`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Read-only and open-world behavior is already declared by readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely useful context on top: exactly three requests, the precise output shape, and the $0.002 USDC x402 charge on Base/Solana/Arc with failed calls uncharged. That pricing and payment-rail disclosure is valuable, but there is no mention of timeouts or how a network-level failure maps to DOWN, which matters for interpreting results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single paragraph is front-loaded with what is measured, then the returned metrics, then the limitations, then the price. Every sentence carries information, though the output enumeration slightly overlaps the existing output schema and could be trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need only a light summary, which the description supplies. Against a one-parameter probe it covers the measurement method, scope limits, and the cost/payment model, leaving no question an agent needs answered before calling it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is only one parameter and the schema already documents it fully at 100% coverage. The description adds nothing beyond repeating the constraint that the target must be a public HTTPS endpoint, so the schema does all the work and the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: measures liveness and latency of one public HTTPS endpoint with three GET requests. It is concrete about what the probe returns (per-request status, time to headers, median, worst, UP/DEGRADED/DOWN level), but it never names or differentiates itself from the closest sibling, agent_intel_x402_endpoint_health_vetting, so an agent must guess which probe tool applies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Scope exclusions are explicit and useful for selection: single location, no other regions, no standalone TLS handshake timing. What is missing is any positive routing guidance, such as when to prefer this over the sibling endpoint-health tool or how often to poll for monitoring, so the agent gets boundaries but not an alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?