Verify liveness of vLLM, SGLang, or TGI serving engines via health probes; specify an inference target or use the default.
[READ] Liveness of the serving engine (vLLM / SGLang / TGI) via its health probe.
Args: target: Inference target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, and the '[READ]' tag merely repeats that. The description adds that the check runs 'via its health probe' and that a default target exists when omitted, but says nothing about timeout/latency behavior or what a positive vs negative probe means. With annotation coverage the lower bar applies, so a 3 is fair.
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 core statement is front-loaded in the first line and the single argument is documented compactly. The 'Args:' block is slightly heavier formatting than needed for one optional parameter, but nothing is wasted or padded.
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 single-optional-parameter, read-only liveness probe with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the runtime scope, and the default-target behavior, while the annotation covers safety. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 0%, so the description must carry the load and it does: 'target: Inference target name from config; omit for the default' explains both the value source and the omitted-parameter behavior, which is exactly the information an agent needs and cannot get from the bare anyOf string schema.
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?
Names a specific resource (the serving engine runtime: vLLM / SGLang / TGI) and a specific operation (liveness check via health probe), which separates it from siblings like engine_inventory, engine_queue_depth, and kv_cache_stats. It never explicitly says which sibling to prefer, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 only usage guidance is the parameter hint 'omit for the default', which is really parameter semantics rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when to reach for this probe versus engine_inventory, engine_queue_depth, or the diagnose_* tools, so usage is only implied by the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.