Diagnose host reachability by resolving DNS, testing TCP connection, and verifying HTTP(S) status.
Full reachability diagnosis for any host: DNS resolution, TCP connect test, then an HTTP(S) status check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | Hostname or IP address | |
| path | No | URL path for the HTTP check (default /) | |
| port | No | TCP port to test (default 443) |
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 behavioral burden. It does disclose the sequence of operations (DNS, TCP, HTTP(S)), but omits whether the tool is read-only, how failures or timeouts are handled, and whether any state changes occur. This is partial but not complete transparency.
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, front-loaded sentence with a colon followed by a compact, ordered list of checks. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description gives a clear high-level behavior but does not cover return format, error behavior, or how this tool relates to sibling diagnostics. For a low-complexity tool with a fully documented parameter schema, this is a moderate gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%: host, path, and port are each described with types and defaults. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Full reachability diagnosis for any host', followed by a concrete sequence of checks (DNS, TCP, HTTP(S)). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on specific services like GitHub or proxy status.
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?
It provides clear context: use this when you need a comprehensive reachability diagnosis of any host. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions and explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.