echoHealth check that returns the provided message verbatim, confirming the Brandize MCP endpoint is reachable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Text to echo back unchanged. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | The same text that was sent, echoed back unchanged. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "message": {
+ "description": "The same text that was sent, echoed back unchanged.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it confirms the message is returned verbatim and that this verifies endpoint reachability.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the tool's identity ('Health check'), and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning.
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 trivial one-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and clear annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the message parameter is already documented as 'Text to echo back unchanged.' The description's 'returns the provided message verbatim' reinforces but doesn't add new semantic information. Baseline 3 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?
Description states a clear verb and resource: it returns the provided message verbatim as a health check. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate logos or search blogs, making selection unambiguous.
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 frames when to use this tool: as a connectivity health check for the Brandize MCP endpoint. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the health-check context effectively communicates its narrow usage scope.
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.