Check service status and verify GREEKS_BASE_URL connectivity before making API calls. Returns availability of Supabase and Stripe, with no key required.
Service health check: returns {status, supabase, stripe}. Public — no key needed. Use to verify GREEKS_BASE_URL is reachable before other calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the endpoint is public, requires no key, and returns a structured object with status, supabase, and stripe keys. This is transparent about access and output behavior.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's essence, zero fluff. Every word earns its place.
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 with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, output shape, authentication, and usage context. Nothing important is missing.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying the call is simple and can be made without credentials, even though it does not explicitly state 'no parameters'.
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 is a service health check that returns status fields, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling financial data tools by being a health/readiness endpoint.
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?
Explicitly advises using this tool to verify GREEKS_BASE_URL is reachable before other calls, providing clear when-to-use guidance. The public/no-key note also informs access conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.