Reports MCP server health, source reachability limits, cached-data freshness, and the most recent successful refresh; runs a lightweight probe only when due, avoiding paid Agent runs.
Report MCP-server health, bounded source reachability, cached-data freshness, and the latest successful source refresh. A lightweight TinyFish Fetch probe runs only when due; it never queues a paid Agent run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that a lightweight TinyFish Fetch probe runs only when due and never queues a paid Agent run, but it does not state permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is strictly read-only.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the reporting scope and followed by the key probe-cost behavior. There is no redundant or filler wording.
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 low-complexity health-check tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists what is reported and clarifies the probe's cost behavior. The main gap is the unexplained source_id parameter.
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 single optional source_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what source_id means, how it scopes results, or what happens when it is omitted. The mention of "source reachability" only loosely hints at the parameter.
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, "Report," and names the concrete health dimensions: server health, source reachability, cached-data freshness, and latest successful refresh. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, which are unrelated design/component 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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the name and the reporting scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.