Checks the health of the bridge, Ollama, and optional providers using read-only access to surface connectivity or availability issues before running analysis tasks.
Prüft Bridge, Ollama und optionale Provider read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. The explicit 'read-only' qualifier is genuinely valuable and prevents the agent from assuming side effects from a tool named 'health'. However, it does not disclose what the check actually probes (reachability, versions, model availability), failure behavior, or whether an unreachable provider could make the call hang.
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 short sentence with the verb front-loaded and the safety qualifier included - no filler, appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool. The non-English wording is a minor structural concern for reliable parsing.
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?
Adequate for a 0-parameter, no-output-schema health probe: it states the scope (Bridge, Ollama, optional providers) and the call contract (read-only). Remaining gaps - the bridge_doctor distinction and the returned status format - are minor for a tool this simple.
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 means the baseline is 4 and the description owes nothing per-parameter. The phrase 'optionale Provider' adds useful semantic context that the check scope auto-extends to optional providers, going beyond the empty 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?
States a specific verb ('Prüft' = checks) with clear resources (Bridge, Ollama, optional providers) and the 'read-only' qualifier, so the health-checking purpose is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the overlapping sibling bridge_doctor, and the German wording may parse less reliably for an English-configured agent.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Given that bridge_doctor is a sibling with clearly related semantics, an agent has no criteria for choosing between a health probe and a deeper diagnostic, and no exclusions or recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.