Run safe EchoPath health checks to verify core operation before desktop or VM workflows. Optionally include the Model Bridge to test agent connectivity.
Run safe EchoPath health checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_model_bridge | No |
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Safe' hints at non-destructiveness but does not state whether the check mutates anything, what services it probes, how long it takes, or what a failure looks like.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. Brevity here is under-specification rather than tight editing, so it does not earn a top score.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with no annotations, an undocumented parameter, and no usage context, the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke this confidently alongside sixteen siblings.
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 single parameter include_model_bridge has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so its effect (whether model-bridge checks are added to the run) is undocumented anywhere. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare property name.
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 verb ('Run') and resource ('health checks') scoped to EchoPath, so the general purpose is inferable. However, 'safe' is undefined and nothing distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that also operate on EchoPath state (get_status, list_runs, etc.).
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?
No indication of when to run a smoke check, whether it should precede other operations, or how it relates to siblings like echopath_get_status. The agent is left to guess the trigger condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.