Verifies the local SiteLens bridge status, identifies the active port, and reports how many analysis reports are cached.
Health check: whether the local SiteLens bridge is up, which port it uses, and how many reports are cached.
| 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 carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return contents (up/down state, port, cached report count) and implies no mutation, but says nothing about auth/prerequisites, latency, or whether the bridge can be started by this call.
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?
One compact sentence that front-loads 'Health check' and enumerates the three returned facts with no waste. The colon construction is slightly terse but readable.
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-param diagnostic with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the key return semantics (status, port, cache count), which is the main information gap. Only prerequisite/how-to-react guidance is absent.
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?
Zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the description need only be consistent, which it is. No parameter-level detail is required or missing.
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 verb (health check) and a specific resource (the local SiteLens bridge), and by describing connectivity status it is implicitly distinguishable from the report-oriented siblings. It stops just short of explicitly contrasting 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?
The word 'health check' implies it is called before or when troubleshooting other calls, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives are given. Usage must be inferred from the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.