Verify Contradiction MCP operational status by checking database connectivity and server metrics, so you can confirm the service is healthy before running tasks.
Checks the operational status of Contradiction MCP, including database connectivity and server metrics.
| 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 disclosure burden and does useful work: it names the specific subsystems probed (DB connectivity, server metrics). A health check is inherently a safe read, so the safety profile is self-evident, but latency, failure semantics, and whether a failing check returns an error vs. an unhealthy status are not covered.
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 of roughly 15 words with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand in for the return contract. It hints at what is measured (connectivity, metrics) but not how results are shaped (healthy/unhealthy status, per-subsystem flags, or a thrown error on failure), leaving an agent unable to anticipate the response.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter text is needed or expected.
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 and resource ('Checks the operational status of Contradiction MCP') and even enumerates the checked subsystems (database connectivity, server metrics). It is trivially distinguishable from the contradiction-handling siblings, though it never names them explicitly.
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?
Usage is strongly implied by the tool's nature — a diagnostic/readiness probe — but the description never states when to invoke it (startup, troubleshooting, connectivity failure) or that it is the only non-contradiction-domain tool. Adequate for a zero-param probe, but no explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.