check_frl_healthChecks the Federal Register of Legislation API availability by measuring response latency, helping you identify whether API issues cause downstream failures.
Pings the Federal Register of Legislation API and reports latency, so failures elsewhere can be attributed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral insight (pings, reports latency, purpose of attribution) beyond annotations. However, it doesn't specify the exact return format or what 'latency' includes, so it's slightly incomplete.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Pings' and directly stateful. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 zero-parameter health check, the description communicates the tool's purpose and use case well. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from specifying what 'latency' entails (e.g., milliseconds, status indicator) to fully guide an agent interpreting results.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies; the description appropriately omits parameter details.
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 the tool pings the Federal Register of Legislation API and reports latency, which is a specific verb+resource+outcome. It distinguishes itself from sibling data-retrieval tools by focusing on API health rather than legal content.
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 clear context for use as an attribution/diagnostic tool ('failures elsewhere can be attributed'), implying use for health checks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list makes the distinction obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.