apimock_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Health check', which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state side effects, return format, or whether it affects server state. For a health check, the agent can infer non-destructiveness, but the absence of any behavioral disclosure (e.g., what 'healthy' means or what the response contains) leaves important gaps.

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 with no filler. It conveys the core purpose immediately and omits unnecessary details. For a parameterless tool, this is an ideal length.

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?

Given the tool's extreme simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient but not rich. It does not describe what the health check returns (e.g., status codes, metrics) or how to interpret the result. An agent would need to infer the response from the name alone. It is not deficient enough to warrant a 2, but it leaves room for more clarity.

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 and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rules, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none to describe, which is appropriate.

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 action ('Health check') and the resource ('API Mocking MCP'). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings (mock and collection), though it does not explicitly contrast them. The verb+resource pattern is clear and unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings apimock_mock or apimock_collection. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or conditions that would make this the right choice. The usage context is entirely implied by the name 'status'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.