Get MCP server health and auth status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what information is returned (config, session, browser fallback) but does not disclose any side effects, read-only nature, or operational details. As a status check, it is likely read-only, but this is not stated. There is no mention of whether it performs network calls, requires auth, or has any side effects.

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, concise sentence that efficiently lists the three key pieces of information returned. No waste; every clause adds value.

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?

While the description is adequate for a zero-parameter status tool, it does not provide any context about the response structure or how the status should be interpreted. For a health/auth status tool, an agent might benefit from knowing what 'browser fallback' means or how to act on the status, but the description meets the minimum viable level.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, which is fully disclosed by the empty schema. Since there are no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no missing information.

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 clearly states what the tool does: returns server configuration status (public/authenticated), session load state, and browser fallback availability. It is specific about the resource (server status) and the information returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools which operate on products, listings, sellers, and categories.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It is implied that this is a diagnostic/utility tool, but the description does not explicitly state when an agent should check server status (e.g., before auth-dependent operations, to verify availability). The sibling tools are all product/catalog-related, so differentiation is clear, but the description lacks usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.