Checks the health status of the API documentation MCP server, confirming it is running and ready to generate markdown docs from OpenAPI JSON or routes.
Health check for API Documentation MCP.
| 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 disclosure burden. It does not say whether the call is read-only, what constitutes a healthy response, or what the check reports (liveness, version, dependencies), leaving behavior largely unspecified.
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 with no filler, front-loaded with the essential purpose. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of detail rather than being maximally informative.
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 this is minimally adequate, and no output schema exists to explain return values. The description could still state what a positive/negative result looks like, which is a real gap for an agent deciding how to interpret the call.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing extra to document beyond what the empty schema already conveys.
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 specific purpose — a health check for the API Documentation MCP — which is a clear verb+resource. It is implicitly distinct from apidoc_from_openapi and apidoc_from_routes, though the description never names those siblings or contrasts itself with them.
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 guidance on when to call this versus the sibling generation tools, nor any preconditions. The intended use (verify the service is reachable) is only implied by the phrase 'health check'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.