Self-test the MCP server: reports whether the DB pool and execution receiver are reachable. Use to distinguish a backend/infra problem from a bad-input error. Returns: {status: healthy|degraded, checks: {database, receiver}}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 accurately reflects the read-only nature implied by annotations and adds concrete detail about what is being checked and what status values are returned. It discloses the scope of the health check without any side effects.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core action ('Self-test the MCP server'), immediately followed by the purpose and return shape. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what is tested, what the result means, and when to call it. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed for a no-argument health check.
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 identifies the tool as a self-test of the MCP server and specifies the exact resources checked (DB pool and execution receiver). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools that handle workflows, nodes, or credentials.
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?
Explicitly instructs when to use the tool: to distinguish backend/infra problems from bad-input errors. This gives the agent a clear decision rule without ambiguity.
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.
