healthFree. Payment network, facilitator and configured data sources.
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"
}
}| 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?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, and the description adds that it is free to call and that it covers three specific subsystems (payment network, facilitator, configured data sources). It does not disclose the response shape or what a degraded result looks like, which matters for a health probe with no output schema.
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?
Two short fragments with no waste, but the terseness comes at the cost of clarity: 'Free.' is front-loaded while the actual subject of the check is a comma-separated noun list with no verb binding it to the tool.
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-argument, no-output-schema health check the description covers the components being probed, which is the main thing an agent needs. It omits what the return value looks like and whether 'configured data sources' varies per deployment, leaving the caller to discover the result format empirically.
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 no parameter meaning to convey and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline of 4 applies.
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 names the scope of the check (payment network, facilitator, configured data sources) but never uses a verb or the word 'health'/'status', so the agent must infer from the tool name that this is a readiness probe. It is more specific than a tautology but does not cleanly state what the tool does.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of how this differs from a sibling such as agents_readiness. The 'Free.' prefix hints at a cost consideration but does not tell the agent when to call it.
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.