Perform a real HTTP check ONLY against Guardian's own fixed test target. Globally rate-limited to one check per minute. Not third-party monitoring.
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": "check_live"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: a real outbound HTTP call, a fixed target with no caller-supplied input, and a global one-per-minute rate limit. It stops short of describing success/failure semantics, timeouts, or what a returned result conveys for a tool whose whole output is a check.
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?
Three short front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the scope constraint leads. The final sentence ('Not third-party monitoring') partially restates the earlier 'ONLY Guardian's own fixed test target,' which is a minor 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the definition covers the important things an agent needs: what is contacted, that it is a genuine network call, and the rate limit. Result semantics are absent, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.
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, which is the baseline-4 case; the description correctly implies the target is fixed and not caller-specified, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.
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?
States a concrete verb and resource: a 'real HTTP check' against 'Guardian's own fixed test target.' The word 'real' plus 'Not third-party monitoring' implicitly separates it from the check_demo sibling, but it never names an alternative, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.
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?
Scope is stated ('ONLY against Guardian's own fixed test target') and one exclusion is given ('Not third-party monitoring'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to check_demo or live_history. An agent must infer that this is for verifying live connectivity rather than inspecting history.
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.