Check the homestead library server's status, including uptime and counts of passages, documents, and categories, to confirm it is running and assess its current load.
Check that the library server is up, and how much it is holding (passages, documents, categories, uptime).
| 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool is a read-only health check reporting uptime and counts, but it does not state response/error behavior or explicitly confirm that it has no side effects. The verb 'Check' implies safety, but that is left implicit.
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 with no filler, front-loading the purpose and then enumerating the observed metrics. Every word contributes meaning.
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 parameterless health-check tool, the description covers the main purpose and the data the agent can expect. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explicitly describe the success/failure output shape or differentiate from homestead_status, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.
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 and an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.
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 uses a clear verb ('Check') and identifies the resource ('library server') plus the specific data points returned (passages, documents, categories, uptime). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tool homestead_status, which seems to overlap substantially.
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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as homestead_status or homestead_catalog. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual conditions, leaving the agent to guess which health/status-related tool to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.