Start monitoring the provisioned email server — checks tunnel, SMTP, DNS, and IP reputation every 60 seconds. Auto-restarts on failure.
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": "start_health_monitor"
}
}| 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. It adds useful behavioral details (frequency, specific checks, auto-restart), but leaves gaps: what 'auto-restarts' means exactly, whether the monitor can be stopped, and what side effects it may have. It does not contradict any annotations since none are provided.
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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action and packs in specifics (checks, frequency, auto-restart). Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 0-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior but omits practical context: what the tool returns, how to stop the monitor, and any prerequisites like the server already being provisioned. It is adequate but leaves the user/agent to infer these details.
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 trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter information, so it deserves the baseline.
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 ('Start'), a resource ('the provisioned email server'), and the exact scope of monitoring ('checks tunnel, SMTP, DNS, and IP reputation'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_health_status (a one-time check) or start_idle_watch (a different monitoring target).
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?
The description implies continuous monitoring ('every 60 seconds', 'auto-restarts on failure') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Unlike the high-quality example, it names no alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions.
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.