autoid_api_healthChecks whether the first-party AutoID canonical API is reachable and reports its declared authoritative commercial fields and relation capabilities.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what is reported (reachability, declared authoritative commercial fields, relation capabilities), which is useful. However, it doesn't say what happens on failure, whether results are cached, or the response shape. For a health-check tool the disclosure is reasonable but incomplete.
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 that front-loads the core purpose (reachability check) and adds the reporting scope. No waste, though it could be slightly tightened.
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 no-param health-check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally explain what a healthy vs unhealthy result looks like and how the reported fields are structured. It covers the purpose but leaves the return semantics entirely unspecified, which is a gap given there is no output schema.
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?
Zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics baseline is 4. There are no parameters to describe, and the description adds no parameter information because none is needed.
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 specific verb (checks) and resource (AutoID canonical API) with the scope of the check (reachability, declared fields, relation capabilities). It distinguishes from sibling autoid_support_health by naming 'canonical API' and 'commercial fields', though it doesn't explicitly say how it differs.
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?
Usage is implied, an agent would infer this is for diagnosing the AutoID canonical API, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no stated alternatives (e.g., vs autoid_support_health), and no prerequisites. Adequate for a simple no-param health check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.