Checks an upstream endpoint's health and reachability by URL with an optional timeout, serving as a backward-compatible alias for service health checks.
[Backward-Compatible Alias] Use 'check_service_health' instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and its key disclosure is the backward-compatibility/deprecation status — genuinely useful because it warns the agent off stale call paths. It still says nothing about how the alias behaves (whether it forwards to check_service_health, timeout semantics, auth, or failure modes).
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the [Backward-Compatible Alias] marker and the redirect. Nothing wasted, nothing buried.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and for a deprecated stub the redirect is the only information an agent truly needs. What is missing is any note on whether calling it still works or is safe to invoke, which would help an agent that encounters it directly.
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 0% for both parameters (url, timeout_seconds), and the description adds nothing about either. Parameter names and the 2.5s default are largely self-explanatory, which keeps this above a 1, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 never says what the tool actually does (probe an upstream URL); it only declares the tool a legacy alias. The name conveys the underlying function, and the deprecation framing is honest, but an agent gets no statement of purpose beyond 'this is an old name.'
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?
Explicit and unambiguous: 'Use check_service_health instead.' It names the exact replacement sibling from the tool list and leaves no inference required about when to use this versus the successor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.