Check an MCP server's health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the agent knows this is a safe outbound read. The description usefully names what is assessed (liveness, maintenance, safety) and the output shape (0-100 score, verdict, signals), but adds nothing about network cost, latency, or failure behavior when the target is unreachable.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the return shape; nothing is wasted. Slight redundancy in enumerating return values when a full output schema already exists keeps it from a 5.

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?

With annotations, a 100%-covered two-parameter schema, and an output schema handling return values, the description covers what the tool is and what it produces. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation, which matters here because three other tools operate on MCP configurations/servers.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, including the enum and the auto-detect note on 'source'. The phrase 'from its npm package or GitHub repo' restates what the schema already encodes, adding no new format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: checking whether ONE MCP server is 'alive, maintained, and safe to use' from an npm package or GitHub repo. Clear, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling inspect_server, which sounds like a near-neighbor operation.

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?

Usage context is implied: single-server checks sourced from npm or GitHub. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing between this tool, inspect_server, audit_config, or scan_config, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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