healthchecksio_get_checkGet a single check by its UUID (or its unique read-only key). Returns the check's full state — status, timeout/schedule, grace, tags, last ping. Healthchecks: GET /checks/{uuid}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | The check's UUID, or its unique read-only key. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by using 'Get' and stating the operation returns state. It goes beyond the annotation by detailing exactly what is returned: status, timeout/schedule, grace, tags, and last ping, plus the underlying REST endpoint. There is no contradiction.
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 two compact sentences with no filler: it front-loads the primary purpose, lists the returned payload, and includes the endpoint reference. 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?
For a simple single-parameter GET with no output schema, the description supplies the endpoint, supported identifier forms, and the key fields of the returned state. Sibling tools cover alternative operations, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call 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 only parameter, uuid, is already fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'UUID (or unique read-only key)' mirrors the schema rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Get') against a specific resource ('a single check'), identified by UUID or read-only key. It also lists the returned state fields, making the operation unambiguous and distinct from sibling operations like create, delete, or list_checks.
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 phrase 'a single check by its UUID' clearly establishes that this tool is for retrieving one check by identifier rather than for collection-level operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_checks for listing all checks, so it provides clear context without explicit exclusions.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action: check CRUD, pause/resume, pings, flips, badges, and integrations. The only potentially related pair, list_pings and get_ping_body, is clearly separated by metadata vs raw body.
All tools follow a clean verb_noun snake_case pattern, with list_* for collections and get_/create_/update_/delete_/pause_/resume_ for single-resource actions. There are no mixed casing styles or inconsistent verb choices.
12 tools is well within the ideal range for this domain, and each tool covers a distinct, necessary operation for managing and inspecting Healthchecks monitoring. The set feels complete without being bloated.
The check lifecycle is fully covered with create, get, update, delete, pause, and resume, plus history and supporting data like pings, flips, badges, and integrations. The main minor gap is that there is no tool to send a ping or manually trigger a check success/failure, so end-to-end ping verification must happen out-of-band.