Checks whether the local modeling service is running, model credentials are configured, and the deployed code is current.
本机建模服务是否在跑、有没有模型凭据、是否在跑旧代码。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "health"
}
}| 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 supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the three diagnostic facts it inspects but says nothing about side effects (presumably none), latency, or whether the check is local-only versus hitting a remote service; the return shape is also unstated with no output schema.
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 compact sentence enumerating three checks with no filler. It is front-loaded with the most important condition (service running) and free of redundancy, though it reads as a fragment rather than a statement of purpose.
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?
The zero-parameter surface keeps requirements low, but with no output schema the description should indicate what a caller gets back (booleans, statuses, an object of checks) — that gap leaves an agent unsure how to interpret results.
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 the schema baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter meaning for the description to add.
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 names three concrete things the tool reports on: whether the local modeling service is running, whether model credentials exist, and whether stale code is being executed. That is specific enough to distinguish it from domain siblings like run_overview or data_check, though the verb is implicit (it never says 'checks' or 'reports').
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 only implied — an agent can infer this is a diagnostic/preflight check, but the description never says when to call it (e.g., before other operations, when errors occur) or when not to. No alternative or prerequisite is mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.