get_healthChecks whether the SEAF portal is available via a health endpoint. Use it to verify connectivity before inspecting sections or querying data.
Когда вызывать: проверить доступность портала (health-check). Возвращает {"message": "app is alive"}. Дальше: list_sections.
Endpoint: GET /health
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the GET endpoint and the expected response body {"message": "app is alive"}, though it does not describe failure behavior or auth requirements.
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 compact and front-loads the usage condition, then gives return value and follow-up step. Every element is relevant, including the endpoint, with no filler.
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 simple zero-parameter health-check, the description supplies the when-to-call guidance, the concrete endpoint, the expected return body, and the next workflow step. With annotations covering safety traits and no output schema, nothing essential appears to be 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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequate without additional description text.
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 states a specific verb and resource: checking portal availability via a health-check, with the concrete endpoint GET /health. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from neighboring diagnostic/storage-problem tools such as get_seaf_core_api_core_storage_problems.
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?
It explicitly says when to call it: to verify portal availability (health-check). It also gives the follow-up step, list_sections, which helps workflow selection, but it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.