Check the API Scenario MCP server's health to confirm it is operational and ready for generating multi-step API workflows.
Health check for API Scenario MCP.
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": "apiscen_status"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. 'Health check' communicates a read-only, non-mutating operation but does not disclose output shape, failure semantics, or whether any state is touched. For a zero-parameter status endpoint, this is minimally adequate but not rich.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the trivial surface area of a zero-parameter health check.
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 operation is simple and parameterless, so the description is largely complete. The only gap is the absence of an explicit statement about the return value, but 'health check' strongly implies a status response. Since no output schema exists, the description could have said more, but the gap is minor.
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 no parameters, and the schema already documents an empty object with 100% coverage. The description adds nothing needed for parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 a specific verb phrase ('Health check') with a clear resource ('API Scenario MCP'). It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools apiscen_generate and apiscen_to_http, which imply different operations. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'health' means in this context.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives is provided. Usage is implied by the term 'health check,' which is sufficient for a simple status tool, but there is no direct statement of when to prefer this over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.