Check connection status, latency, and errors for all configured AI providers. Optionally target a specific provider for detailed health.
Health check all configured AI providers. Shows connection status, latency, and any errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | No | Check a specific provider only (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must communicate behavioral traits. It only states what it shows (status, latency, errors) but does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether it may make network calls, or any potential side effects. For a health check, read-only behavior is implied but not asserted.
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, tight sentence (15 words) that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Health check all configured AI providers') followed by what is shown. No filler or redundant information.
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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and output adequately. It does not mention potential failure modes or output format, but for a health check, this may be sufficient. The description is complete enough to call the tool without further context.
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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'provider' is already fully described in the schema ('Check a specific provider only (optional)'). The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter. With high schema coverage, the baseline 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 clear verb and resource: 'Health check all configured AI providers'. It also specifies what it shows (connection status, latency, errors). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like nexus_subagent_status or nexus_plan_status, though the subject matter (providers vs subagents) is implicitly different.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. It does not mention prerequisites, typical usage scenarios (e.g., 'check before making API calls'), or when not to use it. The use case is implied but not stated explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.