Check Rail Engine health, offline corpus status, and in-memory index performance to verify irctc.dev service availability and diagnose data or indexing issues.
Check irctc.dev Rail Engine health, offline corpus status, and in-memory index performance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check' strongly implies a read-only diagnostic operation, and the description names what is inspected, but it does not clarify side effects, whether it makes network calls, auth requirements, latency, or what the response contains.
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 that names the action and the three inspected areas. Every phrase contributes to tool selection, with no filler or repetition.
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/status tool with no output schema, the description gives enough information to select it and understand its broad scope. The main remaining gap is that it does not characterize the return value, but with no arguments and a clearly diagnostic purpose, this is a minor omission.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for undocumented inputs.
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 uses the specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource, 'irctc.dev Rail Engine health,' and enumerates three target areas: health, offline corpus status, and in-memory index performance. This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which are all train/PNR/station queries, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate itself.
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?
The word 'Check' implies a diagnostic or status-inspection use case, so the intended usage is reasonably inferable. However, the description does not state when an agent should call this tool, such as when other Rail Engine calls fail or when corpus/index status is relevant, and there are no explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.