Full-census summary of the official MCP registry: 7,454 endpoints probed with real MCP handshakes.
Returns alive/dead/unknown counts and percentages. States: alive = MCP
initialize succeeded; dead = no answer; unknown = answered but auth-gated
(401/403/402) or redirecting — liveness unprovable without credentials.
Use to quantify how much of the MCP ecosystem is actually reachable.
| 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?
The description explains the probing method ('real MCP handshakes'), defines each liveness state, and discloses that 'unknown' results are auth-gated or redirecting with liveness unprovable without credentials. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations.
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 concise and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then gives return details, state definitions, and a practical use case. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how the data was gathered, how to interpret the three states, and why some results remain unknown. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is appropriate since there are none to document.
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 states a specific verb and resource: a full-census summary of the official MCP registry, returning alive/dead/unknown counts and percentages. The term 'full-census' clearly distinguishes it from siblings like aw_check_endpoint or aw_health, which focus on individual endpoints or narrower scopes.
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?
It explicitly says 'Use to quantify how much of the MCP ecosystem is actually reachable,' giving a clear use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the full-census framing and sibling names make the intended context clear.
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.