CoastWise MCP

Smoke check

smoke_check

Confirm the CoastWise MCP server is working: echoes input text repeatedly to verify transport, tool discovery, and schema validation before running forecast queries.

Instructions

Health check for the CoastWise MCP server. Echoes a value back so a client can confirm the transport, tool listing, and input validation are all working.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>",
      "count": "<count>"
    },
    "name": "smoke_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Text to echo back.
`count`	Yes	How many times to repeat the text (1-5).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior (echoing the value back, confirming transport and validation), which implies a side-effect-free diagnostic, but it never explicitly states that no state is mutated, what limits apply beyond the schema's 1-5 cap, or what the response looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero waste, front-loading both what the tool is and what it is for. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter echo/diagnostic tool with fully documented params and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. A brief note on return shape or that the tool has no side effects would round it out, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'text' (text to echo back) and 'count' (1-5 repeat) documented in the schema itself. The description mentions echoing a value but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: a health check for the CoastWise MCP server that echoes a value back. The purpose is unambiguous, and while it doesn't contrast with the domain siblings (get_beach_forecast, rate_activity_conditions), those are clearly unrelated so confusion is unlikely.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies diagnostic usage ("so a client can confirm the transport, tool listing, and input validation are all working") but never states when to prefer this over other tools or any exclusions. The context is clear enough to infer, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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

Deploy Server