Verifies API key validity, DNS resolution, and live TinyFish Search/Fetch endpoint health to confirm server readiness for research tasks.
Check API key, DNS, and live TinyFish Search/Fetch endpoint health.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| agent_rules | No | ||
| next_action | No | ||
| quality_gate | No | ||
| protocol_version | No | 7.2 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Because there are no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scope of the checks and implies network interactions, but does not mention failure behavior, timeouts, or side effects. Adequate but shallow.
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. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately concise.
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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does. No return-value explanation is needed because the output schema exists, and the behavior is simple enough that nothing important is missing.
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 nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema already trivially covers. Per calibration guidance, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline 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 'Check' and names the exact resources: API key, DNS, and TinyFish Search/Fetch endpoint health. This makes the tool's function immediately clear and distinguishes it from the sibling research tools.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool or conditions that would call for alternative tools. While the sibling list is unrelated, the description still lacks any context about when this check should be run.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.